If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   It looks like France will settle that whole tax the rich debate for us. Let's see how well that works out for them   (nytimes.com) divider line 275
    More: Obvious, Vincent Grandil  
•       •       •

3420 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Aug 2012 at 8:59 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



275 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-08 11:31:01 AM  

hasty ambush: itsdan: 75% is a tad excessive, but let's look at it another way. Okay so the rich want to leave, assuming France is capable of of not letting them leave and use tax loopholes to keep collecting money from their businesses, they'll have to cash out of their various businesses. Can't really sell them as a whole, only another rich person could buy it and they're leaving, so perhaps it gets split up instead. So suddenly the business providing 1 person with more money than they could ever need is providing 10, 100, 1000 people with a very comfortable living instead of a paycheck-to-paycheck lifestyle.

Exactly where did you study business and economics?


Divide and Prosper
 
2012-08-08 11:33:37 AM  
Serious BlackI'm not trying to argue that interest expenses shouldn't be deductible right now. What I'm simply trying to say is that you can't argue that corporate taxes should be imputed to people who collect capital gains or dividends from said corporation and then use a ludicrously awful figure to inflate the "true" effective tax rate someone pays when the truth is probably closer to it actually deflating their tax rate. The tax code is what it is, and the tax code lets companies like Bain Capital pay low to negative tax rates.

And I'm saying that it DOESN"T allow them to pay negative tax rates. There is no adequate explanation in the Bernstein blog, Brookings paper, or the CBO study to indicate how they come up with the assertion that debt financed companies pay negative income taxes. Again, from my read it seems the CBO is trying to attribute a negative tax rate to debt financed companies by comparing deductions to the taxes paid be recipients of interest.

So I have a company that makes $100 pre interest and pre tax, but have $80 in interest expense. I pay $5 on the remaining $20, yielding a tax rate of 25%. The CBO study seems to be saying - hey you got to deduct $80 at an effective tax rate of 25%, saving you $20, but the investors had an average tax rate of only 10%, which means the IRS only got $8 in taxes on it. The difference of $12 is a net loss to the IRS that we're deducting from the taxes you paid to get to the total effective tax rate of -$7/$100 pre-interest pre-interest income or negative 7%.

If I"m right and that is what the CBO is doing, it is a bullshiat method being used to come up with the supposedly negative effective tax rate.

But lets say I'm wrong and the CBO has a different, valid methodology from coming up with the -6% that you are accepting. Would you at least agree with me that for investors in equity financed companies, for which the effective rate is 36% per the same tables, have an allin rate of over 45% after considering the dividend and cap gains taxes on the remaining 64 cents in after tax earnings?
 
2012-08-08 11:41:22 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Serious BlackI'm not trying to argue that interest expenses shouldn't be deductible right now. What I'm simply trying to say is that you can't argue that corporate taxes should be imputed to people who collect capital gains or dividends from said corporation and then use a ludicrously awful figure to inflate the "true" effective tax rate someone pays when the truth is probably closer to it actually deflating their tax rate. The tax code is what it is, and the tax code lets companies like Bain Capital pay low to negative tax rates.

And I'm saying that it DOESN"T allow them to pay negative tax rates. There is no adequate explanation in the Bernstein blog, Brookings paper, or the CBO study to indicate how they come up with the assertion that debt financed companies pay negative income taxes. Again, from my read it seems the CBO is trying to attribute a negative tax rate to debt financed companies by comparing deductions to the taxes paid be recipients of interest.

So I have a company that makes $100 pre interest and pre tax, but have $80 in interest expense. I pay $5 on the remaining $20, yielding a tax rate of 25%. The CBO study seems to be saying - hey you got to deduct $80 at an effective tax rate of 25%, saving you $20, but the investors had an average tax rate of only 10%, which means the IRS only got $8 in taxes on it. The difference of $12 is a net loss to the IRS that we're deducting from the taxes you paid to get to the total effective tax rate of -$7/$100 pre-interest pre-interest income or negative 7%.

If I"m right and that is what the CBO is doing, it is a bullshiat method being used to come up with the supposedly negative effective tax rate.

But lets say I'm wrong and the CBO has a different, valid methodology from coming up with the -6% that you are accepting. Would you at least agree with me that for investors in equity financed companies, for which the effective rate is 36% per the same tables, have an allin rate of over 45% after considering the dividend and cap gains taxes on the remaining 64 cents in after tax earnings?


Sure, and that's the reason I'm sympathetic to the idea of abolishing the corporate income tax and fully passing on the tax burden of the corporate income tax to dividends and capital gains by raising those up to ordinary income tax rates. I'm not 100% sold on it, but it's at least worthy of debate.
 
2012-08-08 11:43:30 AM  
common ground definitely needs to be reached in regards to american taxation; our gov't has a "credit card" mentality that must be vanquished. We need a return to fiscal responsibility and an end to frivolous spending.
 
2012-08-08 11:46:07 AM  

soakitincider: common ground definitely needs to be reached in regards to american taxation; our gov't has a "credit card" mentality that must be vanquished. We need a return to fiscal responsibility and an end to frivolous spending.


you're not from around here, are you...
 
2012-08-08 11:47:48 AM  

soakitincider: common ground definitely needs to be reached in regards to american taxation; our gov't has a "credit card" mentality that must be vanquished. We need a return to fiscal responsibility and an end to frivolous spending.


Too simple. You fail to mention that taxes are at near record lows and there have already been large cuts to many programs (even farm subsidies) there is room on the other end of the balance sheet to increase revenue. Running a govt costs money.
 
2012-08-08 11:48:30 AM  

soakitincider: common ground definitely needs to be reached in regards to american taxation; our gov't has a "credit card" mentality that must be vanquished. We need a return to fiscal responsibility and an end to frivolous spending.


Instead of "starve the beast," try "serve the check" instead.
 
2012-08-08 11:49:05 AM  

Cubicle Jockey: Debeo Summa Credo: Capital gains and dividends on investments in corporations are already reduced by corporate income tax. You can't directly compare his 13.9% to taxes on earned income.


Say I incorporate my sole proprietership. I deduct my expenses, pay myself a salary, and at the end of the year, the company has $5000 left over after taxes. I then cut a check from the business account and send it to my cousin, who has no relationship to the business, but is going through a rough patch. That $5000 is fully taxable income for him, despite having been previously taxed as corporate profit.

Alternatively, I issue a single common share in my company, sell it to him for a penny, issue a $5000 dividend to him, and he pays the capital gains rate instead.


What is the moral difference between the two methods I could have used that require the second method to be taxed at a lower rate?


The $5,000 is a business expense, it would be a deduction for your company. So you'd save taxes at the corporate rate, but your cousing would pay taxes at the individual rate. Assuming that your corporate rate was the same as his personal rate, no additional net taxes would be paid. That $5,000 would only be taxed once. (Your corp earned it in its ordinary business, incurred in expense when paying it to your cousin, who paid the only tax on it)

If instead you issue him a share of stock and dividend the $5,000 to him, he pays the currently lower dividend tax rate of 15%, but corporations do not get to deduct dividends, so your corporation doesn't get any tax benefit from this outlay. Net addtional tax is $750 paid to the IRS. It's been taxed twice. (Your corp earned it in its ordinary business and paid tax, then dividended it to your cousin who was taxed.)
 
2012-08-08 11:53:27 AM  

EighthDay: This.

It astounds me how few people truly understand how a tax bracket system work.

I understand not getting how all the different exemptions work, but the tax brackets aren't even highschool level math.


This.

People are stupid and easily confused.
 
2012-08-08 11:54:50 AM  
upload.democraticunderground.com

Don't like taxes, don't pay'em
 
2012-08-08 11:55:14 AM  

Serious Black: Debeo Summa Credo: Serious BlackI'm not trying to argue that interest expenses shouldn't be deductible right now. What I'm simply trying to say is that you can't argue that corporate taxes should be imputed to people who collect capital gains or dividends from said corporation and then use a ludicrously awful figure to inflate the "true" effective tax rate someone pays when the truth is probably closer to it actually deflating their tax rate. The tax code is what it is, and the tax code lets companies like Bain Capital pay low to negative tax rates.

And I'm saying that it DOESN"T allow them to pay negative tax rates. There is no adequate explanation in the Bernstein blog, Brookings paper, or the CBO study to indicate how they come up with the assertion that debt financed companies pay negative income taxes. Again, from my read it seems the CBO is trying to attribute a negative tax rate to debt financed companies by comparing deductions to the taxes paid be recipients of interest.

So I have a company that makes $100 pre interest and pre tax, but have $80 in interest expense. I pay $5 on the remaining $20, yielding a tax rate of 25%. The CBO study seems to be saying - hey you got to deduct $80 at an effective tax rate of 25%, saving you $20, but the investors had an average tax rate of only 10%, which means the IRS only got $8 in taxes on it. The difference of $12 is a net loss to the IRS that we're deducting from the taxes you paid to get to the total effective tax rate of -$7/$100 pre-interest pre-interest income or negative 7%.

If I"m right and that is what the CBO is doing, it is a bullshiat method being used to come up with the supposedly negative effective tax rate.

But lets say I'm wrong and the CBO has a different, valid methodology from coming up with the -6% that you are accepting. Would you at least agree with me that for investors in equity financed companies, for which the effective rate is 36% per the same tables, have an allin rate of over 45% after ...

Sure, and that's the reason I'm sympathetic to the idea of abolishing the corporate income tax and fully passing on the tax burden of the corporate income tax to dividends and capital gains by raising those up to ordinary income tax rates. I'm not 100% sold on it, but it's at least worthy of debate


yeah, I'm in the same boat with you there. Lower the corporate tax rate veryt significantly (like Ireland levels or even lower), eliminate distortions re deductions/loopholes/preferences, and just apply regular rates to all investment income. Phasing it in would be tricky, but that's what we should go for. Would reduce significantly tax avoidance among corporations, make the system more efficient, and encourage growth, without increasing tax burdens on investors or reducing overall progressivity.
 
2012-08-08 11:57:41 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: yeah, I'm in the same boat with you there. Lower the corporate tax rate veryt significantly (like Ireland levels or even lower), eliminate distortions re deductions/loopholes/preferences, and just apply regular rates to all investment income. Phasing it in would be tricky, but that's what we should go for. Would reduce significantly tax avoidance among corporations, make the system more efficient, and encourage growth, without increasing tax burdens on investors or reducing overall progressivity.


Bingo. So simple. So elegant.

So impossible to accomplish because you will never pry the control over everything that tax policy provides to congress. Take that away and they lose most of their power. And power is why they are there.
 
2012-08-08 11:58:03 AM  

socodog: All this talk of taxing individuals at a higher rate when corporations are paying almost nothing. How farking stupid.


Corporations are people, my friend. (Oblig.)

I agree with you, but practically speaking, getting Congress to eliminate corporate subsidies and loopholes is much less likely than raising the highest marginal income tax rates. (And even the latter is pretty unlikely in our oligarchy.)
 
2012-08-08 12:00:08 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Debeo Summa Credo: yeah, I'm in the same boat with you there. Lower the corporate tax rate veryt significantly (like Ireland levels or even lower), eliminate distortions re deductions/loopholes/preferences, and just apply regular rates to all investment income. Phasing it in would be tricky, but that's what we should go for. Would reduce significantly tax avoidance among corporations, make the system more efficient, and encourage growth, without increasing tax burdens on investors or reducing overall progressivity.

Bingo. So simple. So elegant.

So impossible to accomplish because you will never pry the control over everything that tax policy provides to congress. Take that away and they lose most of their power. And power is why they are there.


I dunno. Lobbyists would be pushing pretty hard for a zeroed-out corporate tax rate.
 
2012-08-08 12:01:30 PM  

soakitincider: common ground definitely needs to be reached in regards to american taxation; our gov't has a "credit card" mentality that must be vanquished. We need a return to fiscal responsibility and an end to frivolous spending.


Cutting spending during an economic down turn is very farking stupid you know.
 
2012-08-08 12:04:44 PM  

monoski: soakitincider: common ground definitely needs to be reached in regards to american taxation; our gov't has a "credit card" mentality that must be vanquished. We need a return to fiscal responsibility and an end to frivolous spending.

Too simple. You fail to mention that taxes are at near record lows and there have already been large cuts to many programs (even farm subsidies) there is room on the other end of the balance sheet to increase revenue. Running a govt costs money.


the wars and military excursions we have been wrangled into are quite frivolous; there was no threat to our freedom, but now our economic freedom is under duress (including the de-industrailization of america). Some of the functions and expenditures that the federal gov't carries should be turned over to the states to deal with, as any task that can be executed by a more local entity should be relegated to them to perform the work.
 
2012-08-08 12:05:57 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Dr Dreidel: What a business does with profits - paying dividends, investing in R&D, giving raises all around - may result in taxes being assessed. Ya buys yer ticket; ya takes the ride.

Am I misunderstanding you here?

Revenues invested back into the company for R&D are not profits.Same as income revenue that is spent on insurance, rent, new equipment, employee training, raises, etc.

Taxable Profits are the moneys left over AFTER all these expenses are paid.


I'm not a business guy. I used "profits" to mean what is likely "revenues" on a corporate sheet - everything left over after paying your people, bills and clients. I realize that what you do with that pot may be tax-exempt, tax-deductible, or taxed at several levels.

Which is my point.
 
2012-08-08 12:06:10 PM  

soakitincider: Some of the functions and expenditures that the federal gov't carries should be turned over to the states to deal with, as any task that can be executed by a more local entity should be relegated to them to perform the work.


Such as?
 
2012-08-08 12:06:47 PM  

qorkfiend: BojanglesPaladin: Debeo Summa Credo: yeah, I'm in the same boat with you there. Lower the corporate tax rate veryt significantly (like Ireland levels or even lower), eliminate distortions re deductions/loopholes/preferences, and just apply regular rates to all investment income. Phasing it in would be tricky, but that's what we should go for. Would reduce significantly tax avoidance among corporations, make the system more efficient, and encourage growth, without increasing tax burdens on investors or reducing overall progressivity.

Bingo. So simple. So elegant.

So impossible to accomplish because you will never pry the control over everything that tax policy provides to congress. Take that away and they lose most of their power. And power is why they are there.

I dunno. Lobbyists would be pushing pretty hard for a zeroed-out corporate tax rate.


They would push ridiculously hard for a one-year zeroed-out rate much more than a permanent abolishment. Lobbyists LOVE extenders like that. Beyond that though, I agree with BojanglesPaladin that lobbyists would rather see hundreds of individual deductions, exemptions, and various loophole-laden rules that allow people to get away with murder. Anything that allows them more power is good.
 
2012-08-08 12:08:53 PM  

Serious Black: soakitincider: common ground definitely needs to be reached in regards to american taxation; our gov't has a "credit card" mentality that must be vanquished. We need a return to fiscal responsibility and an end to frivolous spending.

Instead of "starve the beast," try "serve the check" instead.


YOu may be right if a person has a purely conservative worldview, but I think we would be better served with a highly distributed form of governance and economics.
 
2012-08-08 12:11:27 PM  

qorkfiend: soakitincider: Some of the functions and expenditures that the federal gov't carries should be turned over to the states to deal with, as any task that can be executed by a more local entity should be relegated to them to perform the work.

Such as?


Not to mention; How do the states pay for it? Oh shiat, taxes.
 
2012-08-08 12:12:22 PM  

qorkfiend: soakitincider: Some of the functions and expenditures that the federal gov't carries should be turned over to the states to deal with, as any task that can be executed by a more local entity should be relegated to them to perform the work.

Such as?


any of the 1000's of adminstration type tasks that the federal gov't currently carries out. Mail for example. Or public housing/health.
 
2012-08-08 12:14:02 PM  

xanadian: Poorly.

There's nothing wrong with raising taxes (even on the rich) a bit. Maybe even as much as 5%. But all the way to 75%!??


This isn't about taxing the rich. What they're attempting to do there isn't going to make a dent in their debt. This is about "sticking it to the rich" to give a little bit of leeway to sticking it to the regular folks by cutting their safety nets (which will make a huge dent in their debt).

Whatever anyone says about France, their government isn't completely stupid. They know this isn't going to do a darn thing to fix their problem, but they also know it's going to give them ammunition when they go after the 99.99999%.
 
2012-08-08 12:14:15 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Capital gains and dividends on investments in corporations are already reduced by corporate income tax.


This is incorrect. I have personally explained this to you multiple times before, and you still persist in claiming it constantly.

No, not all capital gains are already reduced by corporate income tax. This is true only for dividends and distributions. In general equity trades, the vast majority of capital gains, are not directly reduced by corporate income tax first. You can say at most that a regular stock scenario where someone buys low and sells high and the reason for it is entirely due to corporate profits and not the billion other factors that influence markets that corporate taxes might be indirectly involved. That's really it.

For other types capital gains corporate taxes do not already reduce them in any way, shape or form. If you care to explain to me how capital gains from a successful short have already been reduced by corporate taxes please do. Until they you really need to stop making the blanket statement that capital gains are reduced by corporate income tax since you should know damn well by now that is not true.
 
2012-08-08 12:16:17 PM  

soakitincider: qorkfiend: soakitincider: Some of the functions and expenditures that the federal gov't carries should be turned over to the states to deal with, as any task that can be executed by a more local entity should be relegated to them to perform the work.

Such as?

any of the 1000's of adminstration type tasks that the federal gov't currently carries out. Mail for example. Or public housing/health.


See, those would be the exact opposite of things I'd hand to the states. Then again, I live in a state that can't re-pave a road without causing a nightmare for half a million people, so I admit to being a bit biased about states' competency.
 
2012-08-08 12:16:35 PM  

soakitincider: Serious Black: soakitincider: common ground definitely needs to be reached in regards to american taxation; our gov't has a "credit card" mentality that must be vanquished. We need a return to fiscal responsibility and an end to frivolous spending.

Instead of "starve the beast," try "serve the check" instead.

YOu may be right if a person has a purely conservative worldview, but I think we would be better served with a highly distributed form of governance and economics.


www.biopoliticaltimes.org
 
2012-08-08 12:17:13 PM  

soakitincider: qorkfiend: soakitincider: Some of the functions and expenditures that the federal gov't carries should be turned over to the states to deal with, as any task that can be executed by a more local entity should be relegated to them to perform the work.

Such as?

any of the 1000's of adminstration type tasks that the federal gov't currently carries out. Mail for example. Or public housing/health.


The Postal Service is actually in the Constitution; the Founders clearly intended for it to be under the Federal government's purview. Mail service would not benefit from 50 different postal services that all have to work together.

Public housing and health, perhaps. Medicaid is administered at the state level, and the ACA places most of the burden for organization and administration on the states as well.
 
2012-08-08 12:28:13 PM  
I like how people think the government is some creature living in a cave on the hilltop that requires sacrifice or it will destroy the village. The government is an extension of the people, and anyone who is all for the "taxation is theft" argument is the worst kind of self-entitled douche. If you think you are payed more because you are more important, you're an idiot. See how well you do without a world of teachers, coppers, nurses or firefighters. They don't get payed farkall.
 
2012-08-08 12:29:00 PM  
And because of this, there are no rich people in France, and they're practically having to give away real estate in Paris.

*eyeroll*
 
2012-08-08 12:30:21 PM  

Thrag: Debeo Summa Credo: Capital gains and dividends on investments in corporations are already reduced by corporate income tax.

This is incorrect. I have personally explained this to you multiple times before, and you still persist in claiming it constantly.

No, not all capital gains are already reduced by corporate income tax. This is true only for dividends and distributions. In general equity trades, the vast majority of capital gains, are not directly reduced by corporate income tax first. You can say at most that a regular stock scenario where someone buys low and sells high and the reason for it is entirely due to corporate profits and not the billion other factors that influence markets that corporate taxes might be indirectly involved. That's really it.

For other types capital gains corporate taxes do not already reduce them in any way, shape or form. If you care to explain to me how capital gains from a successful short have already been reduced by corporate taxes please do. Until they you really need to stop making the blanket statement that capital gains are reduced by corporate income tax since you should know damn well by now that is not true.


Profits on short sales of any financial instrument are not given capital gains treatment. Those profits are taxed at ordinary rates.

Also, profits earned on investments held for less than one year are taxed at ordinary rates. The tax system is rightly structured like this to prevent short term traders from taking advantage of lower rates when they're churning their portfolio weekly.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-08-08 12:31:16 PM  

Here'sJohnny: qorkfiend: Paying back debts is voluntary, to you? Fascinating.

Yes, it's voluntary, much like everything in life. Of course, there are generally severe consequences for not doing technically voluntary but strongly encouraged activities such as this.

What any of this has to do with the national debt is beyond me as dealing with it is not a binary choice between a 75% tax bracket on the rich and default.


I think it has something to do with the headline, the comment thread of which you are reading.
 
2012-08-08 12:35:56 PM  

Here'sJohnny: I'm really tired of this myth that we can raise taxes back to 50s levels in the US and it will be just fine. Everyone who claims history as an example needs to take a few things into account:
***
4) Brackets were a lot higher. That 95% kicked in at about the modern equivalent of 20 million a year (figure is from memory so it might be a bit off but not by much), which was an amount that even a smaller proportion of people earned then due to the relatively small GDP compared to today.
***


Wrong, buddy. Top tax bracket of 94% in 1944 started at $200K. That's $2,396,548.25 in 2010 Dollars.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
 
2012-08-08 12:43:09 PM  

Serious Black: I agree with BojanglesPaladin that congress lobbyists would rather see hundreds of individual deductions, exemptions, and various loophole-laden rules


Lobbyists are only there as courtiers to the lawmakers peddling influence and seeking largesse. It is congress that will never release the ability to control everything from education to healthcare to space exploration through labyrinthian tax codes, sibsidies, loopholes, and what not. They need this control to direct pork and exert their authority.
 
2012-08-08 12:50:06 PM  

qorkfiend:

What people making over €1m a year do you imagine are working 100 hours a week?

A lot of them?
Where does everyone get the idea that making millions means you're lying all day on a tropical beach with a drink in hand? You may not have realized this, but making a million a year takes hard work. Probably because your genius intellect allows you to make far more effortlessly, did I guess right?
 
2012-08-08 12:50:15 PM  
Isn't 75% the rate the GOP would tax those who make less than 300k at?
 
2012-08-08 12:51:22 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Thrag: Debeo Summa Credo: Capital gains and dividends on investments in corporations are already reduced by corporate income tax.

This is incorrect. I have personally explained this to you multiple times before, and you still persist in claiming it constantly.

No, not all capital gains are already reduced by corporate income tax. This is true only for dividends and distributions. In general equity trades, the vast majority of capital gains, are not directly reduced by corporate income tax first. You can say at most that a regular stock scenario where someone buys low and sells high and the reason for it is entirely due to corporate profits and not the billion other factors that influence markets that corporate taxes might be indirectly involved. That's really it.

For other types capital gains corporate taxes do not already reduce them in any way, shape or form. If you care to explain to me how capital gains from a successful short have already been reduced by corporate taxes please do. Until they you really need to stop making the blanket statement that capital gains are reduced by corporate income tax since you should know damn well by now that is not true.

Profits on short sales of any financial instrument are not given capital gains treatment. Those profits are taxed at ordinary rates.

Also, profits earned on investments held for less than one year are taxed at ordinary rates. The tax system is rightly structured like this to prevent short term traders from taking advantage of lower rates when they're churning their portfolio weekly.


Your entire reply is tangential to your assertion. Yes, there is a difference in short and long term capital gains. That doesn't change anything I said and it doesn't support your claim that I am refuting. You claim that capital gains are already reduced by corporate taxes. The difference between short and long term capital gains does not support or even address that point.

Also, short term capital gains are still capital gains. They are not currently taxed at a preferential rate but that doesn't somehow make them not capital gains. If you want to amend your statement to "long term capital gains are already reduced by corporate taxes" you can, but even that blanket statement is not really true as I and others have explained to you multiple times. The only amendment that will make your claim not false is to add a weasel word like "some" to the front.
 
2012-08-08 01:02:45 PM  

unregenerate: I like how people think the government is some creature living in a cave on the hilltop that requires sacrifice or it will destroy the village. The government is an extension of the people, and anyone who is all for the "taxation is theft" argument is the worst kind of self-entitled douche. If you think you are payed more because you are more important, you're an idiot. See how well you do without a world of teachers, coppers, nurses or firefighters. They don't get payed farkall.


to be fair here, the magnitude of government money that is spent on these items is pretty small when you compare them to things like DoD, Medicare, Social Security and even the Interest on the National Debt. Most sane folks recognize the need for the government functions which you list, but that has little to do with the major fiscal issues we currently face as a country.
 
2012-08-08 01:06:05 PM  

Thrag: Debeo Summa Credo: Thrag: Debeo Summa Credo: Capital gains and dividends on investments in corporations are already reduced by corporate income tax.

This is incorrect. I have personally explained this to you multiple times before, and you still persist in claiming it constantly.

No, not all capital gains are already reduced by corporate income tax. This is true only for dividends and distributions. In general equity trades, the vast majority of capital gains, are not directly reduced by corporate income tax first. You can say at most that a regular stock scenario where someone buys low and sells high and the reason for it is entirely due to corporate profits and not the billion other factors that influence markets that corporate taxes might be indirectly involved. That's really it.

For other types capital gains corporate taxes do not already reduce them in any way, shape or form. If you care to explain to me how capital gains from a successful short have already been reduced by corporate taxes please do. Until they you really need to stop making the blanket statement that capital gains are reduced by corporate income tax since you should know damn well by now that is not true.

Profits on short sales of any financial instrument are not given capital gains treatment. Those profits are taxed at ordinary rates.

Also, profits earned on investments held for less than one year are taxed at ordinary rates. The tax system is rightly structured like this to prevent short term traders from taking advantage of lower rates when they're churning their portfolio weekly.

Your entire reply is tangential to your assertion. Yes, there is a difference in short and long term capital gains. That doesn't change anything I said and it doesn't support your claim that I am refuting. You claim that capital gains are already reduced by corporate taxes. The difference between short and long term capital gains does not support or even address that point.

Also, short term capital gains are still capital gains. They are not currently taxed at a preferential rate but that doesn't somehow make them not capital gains. If you want to amend your statement to "long term capital gains are already reduced by corporate taxes" you can, but even that blanket statement is not really true as I and others have explained to you multiple times. The only amendment that will make your claim not false is to add a weasel word like "some" to the front.


Okay, I guess. I won't apply a weasel word but will be more precise in saying that "capital gains on corporate investments that are subject to capital gains taxes have already been affected by corporate taxes".

As I only enter these debates when someone else complains that cap gains tax rates are unfair because they are lower than ordinary tax rates, including in this thread, I wouldn't think such precision is necessary.
 
2012-08-08 01:25:18 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Okay, I guess. I won't apply a weasel word but will be more precise in saying that "capital gains on corporate investments that are subject to capital gains taxes have already been affected by corporate taxes".


That still is not correct. You really seem to be avoiding the point. When it comes down to it only gains like dividends have already been reduced by corporate taxes, and they are not close to the majority of capital gains.

As I only enter these debates when someone else complains that cap gains tax rates are unfair because they are lower than ordinary tax rates, including in this thread, I wouldn't think such precision is necessary.

It's not just a matter of precision when one is falsely attributing characteristics of a small subset of a class to an entire class. You are You are basing your arguments on a false notion. You are trying to make it seem like all capital gains are first taxed on the corporate level and then on the personal level, that is simply not true for the vast majority of capital gains.

There are plenty of good arguments to be had about if and how different types of capital gains from investments should be taxed, but you can't begin them from a false premise.
 
2012-08-08 01:25:58 PM  
75% even on the highest bracket is still excessive no matter how much you want to argue "well its still enough to live on".
 
2012-08-08 01:32:22 PM  
These are the only sharp cuts that the filthy rich deserve.

www.understandfrance.org
 
2012-08-08 01:34:14 PM  

Here'sJohnny: qorkfiend:

What people making over €1m a year do you imagine are working 100 hours a week?
A lot of them?
Where does everyone get the idea that making millions means you're lying all day on a tropical beach with a drink in hand? You may not have realized this, but making a million a year takes hard work. Probably because your genius intellect allows you to make far more effortlessly, did I guess right?


Everyone with money is just a thief who got lucky. But don't you worry, 24 year old economic geniuses on Fark know how to fix all our problems.
 
2012-08-08 01:41:14 PM  
Kome


75% on $1.24 million leaves $310,000 leftover.

Sorry, but anyone who can't live a comfortable-as-hell lifestyle without a care in the world on the equivalent of $310,000/year is horrible with money and doesn't deserve any of it.


Your greed will taint you. Maybe if those were the only taxes one paid - still have vat taxes, property taxes and number of other taxes on goods and services.
 
Ehh
2012-08-08 01:44:44 PM  
There were news stories a while ago about how rich people from France were buying property in London in case local elections didn't go their way. Example.
 
2012-08-08 01:59:31 PM  

Thrag: Debeo Summa Credo: Okay, I guess. I won't apply a weasel word but will be more precise in saying that "capital gains on corporate investments that are subject to capital gains taxes have already been affected by corporate taxes".

That still is not correct. You really seem to be avoiding the point. When it comes down to it only gains like dividends have already been reduced by corporate taxes, and they are not close to the majority of capital gains.

As I only enter these debates when someone else complains that cap gains tax rates are unfair because they are lower than ordinary tax rates, including in this thread, I wouldn't think such precision is necessary.

It's not just a matter of precision when one is falsely attributing characteristics of a small subset of a class to an entire class. You are You are basing your arguments on a false notion. You are trying to make it seem like all capital gains are first taxed on the corporate level and then on the personal level, that is simply not true for the vast majority of capital gains.

There are plenty of good arguments to be had about if and how different types of capital gains from investments should be taxed, but you can't begin them from a false premise.


I really think you're splitting hairs. When I use the term 'capital gains', I mean gains to which the capital gains tax applies. Because that's what I'm always defending. Why would we even be having a discussion on taxes of short term capital gains or short sales or options etc.? Those are taxed at ordinary rates so the average left leaning farker wouldn't have a bug in his ass about it in the first place.

I ordinarily add the modifier 'on corporate investments', because you can pay capital gains taxes on other items, such as real estate or commodities, to which my corporate tax argument does not apply.

One would think that most people would understand this without me spelling it out, but I'll be careful to be more specific.

Also, I can't find any statistics on it but I would think that the majority of capital gains by dollar volume, are those that qualify for the lower rate, in any case it isn't 'just a small subset'. If it is a small subset, why is it so frequently a topic of whining for the left to compare the cap gains rate to ordinary tax rates?
 
2012-08-08 03:02:32 PM  

Thrag: No, not all capital gains are already reduced by corporate income tax. This is true only for dividends and distributions. In general equity trades, the vast majority of capital gains, are not directly reduced by corporate income tax first. You can say at most that a regular stock scenario where someone buys low and sells high and the reason for it is entirely due to corporate profits and not the billion other factors that influence markets that corporate taxes might be indirectly involved.


profitability has a f@ckload to do with equity pricing. the most you can say is on relatively rare occasions when you are talking about an industry segment that the market views as having very large growth potential compared relative to the rest of the market it isn't nearly as important and sometimes isn't important at all over the shortterm.
 
2012-08-08 03:24:32 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Also, I can't find any statistics on it but I would think that the majority of capital gains by dollar volume, are those that qualify for the lower rate, in any case it isn't 'just a small subset'. If it is a small subset, why is it so frequently a topic of whining for the left to compare the cap gains rate to ordinary tax rates?


You continue to misunderstand despite clear and repeated explanations. The small subset I am referring to are gains like dividends, which are the gains that are indeed directly hit first by corporate taxes and then by personal taxes. For equity trades, the vast majority of capital gains, the best you can say is that taxation might have an indirect effect on the gains made in a particular trade. Dividends are reduced by first by corporate taxes, for equity trades the best you can claim is that for a particular gain corporate taxes might have an indirect and entirely unquantifiable effect. When I sell the shares of company X that I bought (in a non-IPO or secondary offering situation) that money never touches the company in any way. It is not touched by corporate taxes. Taxes do have a relationship to profitability and profitability can be one of the myriad of factors that led to my making a gain on the stock, but still that gain has not been reduced by corporate taxes. The money was never with the corporation, it never got taxed at the corporate level.

In short, the notion of "double taxation" is complete and utter bullshiat except for only specific types of capital gains like dividends.
 
2012-08-08 03:29:27 PM  

relcec: Thrag: No, not all capital gains are already reduced by corporate income tax. This is true only for dividends and distributions. In general equity trades, the vast majority of capital gains, are not directly reduced by corporate income tax first. You can say at most that a regular stock scenario where someone buys low and sells high and the reason for it is entirely due to corporate profits and not the billion other factors that influence markets that corporate taxes might be indirectly involved.

profitability has a f@ckload to do with equity pricing. the most you can say is on relatively rare occasions when you are talking about an industry segment that the market views as having very large growth potential compared relative to the rest of the market it isn't nearly as important and sometimes isn't important at all over the shortterm.


None of what you wrote really addresses the argument. At best it supports my refutation of the notion that all capital gains are reduced by corporate taxes since you admit there are situations where taxes don't even have any indirect effect on gains made on equity trades.

I have made long term capital gains from trading stocks that did not make a cent of profit and thus did not pay a cent of corporate tax during the entire time I owned them. There is no possible way for one to claim that those gains were first reduced by corporate taxes even indirectly.
 
2012-08-08 03:33:28 PM  

Thrag:

None of what you wrote really addresses the argument. At best it supports my refutation of the notion that all capital gains are reduced by corporate taxes since you admit there are situations where taxes don't even have any indirect effect on gains made on equity trades.

I have made long term capital gains from trading stocks that did not make a cent of profit and thus did not pay a cent of corporate tax during the entire time I owned them. There is no possible way for one to claim that those gains were first reduced by corporate taxes even indirectly.


which stocks exactly? you realize even if you make money on unprofitable companies that doesn't mean an expectation of future profitability and the amount of tax that company will someday have to pay isn't already baked into the price, right?
 
2012-08-08 03:34:54 PM  
the argument that corporate taxes aren't reflected in stock valuations is ridiculous.
 
Displayed 50 of 275 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report