Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Last year, the Obamas paid a 25% higher tax rate than Mitt Romney - on only 3.5% of his last reported income   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, First Lady Michelle Obama, Dr. Jill Biden, tax rates, adjusted gross income  
•       •       •

4340 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Apr 2013 at 3:10 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-04-12 04:42:16 PM  

ourbigdumbmouth: They only paid 18%?

Bunch of scammers


gave away 1/4 of their income to charity, which helps
 
2013-04-12 04:46:16 PM  

theknuckler_33: Debeo Summa Credo: theknuckler_33: Debeo Summa Credo: Christ you people are farking stupid. Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level. So you need to add corporate taxes to Romney's (and Obama's, to the extent any of their income was from such income) to get an appropriate comparison.

If I buy a new car, I pay sales tax on that car. If I then sell that car later to someone else, that person has to pay sales tax on it... at the same rate.  Don't give us that double-taxation bullshiat. It is income and should be taxed as income just like wages.

Oh my god, " sales taxes". I love that argument.

I generally try not to use the term "double taxation", because it's not exactly double.

Do you consider people who describe corporate tax/dividend and capital gains tax as "double taxation" to be idiots?

By the way, I'm sure you know that short-term capital gains are taxed as regular income. I know because I got a modest stock option award a few years ago and surprisingly didn't have 10s of thousands of dollars handy to buy the shares and sit on them for over a year before selling to take advantage of that special rate. I had to buy/sell in the same day in order to realize some of the proceeds.

Why is it ok to treat SOME capital gains preferentially?  In particular, the kind of capital gains that again are mostly realized by a certain segment of society?


Because the tax code was structured to incentivize long term investment, not short term trading or speculation.

Gains on options is somewhat speculative and are treated as ordinary income, I believe whether you hold the option for a day or two years.

What you describe is also a point of many liberals who believe hedge funds get a benefit from lower cap gains rates. Many hedge funds buy and sell on a short term basis and therefore pay ordinary rates.
 
2013-04-12 04:46:50 PM  

Justin Bieber's Acne Medication: I paid 25% in federal income tax alone last year - ouch. More than Obama, even after adjusting for his big charitable deductions.


Nope he edged you ever so slightly.  He had 609000 in Gross income, donated 25% of that to charity and paid 109000 of just a we bit over 1/4 or 25% of the remaining income in taxes
 
2013-04-12 04:47:27 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Mrtraveler01: FAIRTAX!!!

Have you read the proposal?


I have. Please go ahead and advocate a 30% national sales tax. Tell us all the merits of replacing income tax with a 30% federal sales tax.

While massive fail will you pick? Will it be the standard fair tax advocate basic math fail of not understanding that the proposal does indeed call for a 30% tax on top of the base cost of things? Will you engage in the typical denial and hand waving about how a 30% sales tax will create a massive black market? I can't to hear your defense of the fair tax!
 
2013-04-12 04:48:16 PM  

theknuckler_33: Debeo Summa Credo: theknuckler_33: Debeo Summa Credo: Christ you people are farking stupid. Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level. So you need to add corporate taxes to Romney's (and Obama's, to the extent any of their income was from such income) to get an appropriate comparison.

If I buy a new car, I pay sales tax on that car. If I then sell that car later to someone else, that person has to pay sales tax on it... at the same rate.  Don't give us that double-taxation bullshiat. It is income and should be taxed as income just like wages.

Oh my god, " sales taxes". I love that argument.

I generally try not to use the term "double taxation", because it's not exactly double.

Do you consider people who describe corporate tax/dividend and capital gains tax as "double taxation" to be idiots?

I consider people who think dividend and capital gains income, which disproportionately goes to the wealthiest people in this country, is inherently different from wages made by the little people in the context of paying income taxes to be idiots.

Does that answer your question.


No, not at all. But if you are correct and corporate income is no different from wages then why is corporate income taxed twice?
 
2013-04-12 04:49:12 PM  
I don't know why I'm looking at someone else's tax returns, but for some reason the "Your Occupation: US PRESIDENT  Spouse's occupation: US FIRST LADY" cracks me up.
 
2013-04-12 04:49:14 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Christ you people are farking stupid. Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level. So you need to add corporate taxes to Romney's (and Obama's, to the extent any of their income was from such income) to get an appropriate comparison.

Dont bother posting that cartoon that proves my point even though you think it proves yours. Just answer me this: how much of each dollar in pretax corporate income do you believe should end up in the pockets of owners, and how much should be taken by government? Be precise. Throw out a number.

/to the extent Romneys earnings were on carried interest, then that is a different story

Capital gains weren't taxed at the corporate level.

I buy buy stock in DSC Corporate Cocksuckers at $10 a share. Your business is so good that 5 years later I sell it at $100 a share. The income I derive from the increase in the value of the stock never passes through the hands of DSC Corporate Cocksuckers to be taxed.

Sure it is, you idiot. Don't you think the price of the stock reflects the fact that DSCCS has to pay taxes on its earnings?

Or do you assume that all investors are as stupid as you, and don't consider the taxes that will be paid on the company's future great earnings?

Nope. DSC Corporate Cocksuckers stock value could have increased without ever showing a dime in taxable profit. Stock price is not a direct reflection of the company's profit., let alone it's tax bill.

More importantly , the money that changes hands in the stock transaction is entirely independent of the company, and in no way is subject to corporate taxes.

Stock price is absolutely reflexive of investors expectations regarding future profits, inclusive of taxes.

If we abolished corporate income taxes tomorrow, stock prices would skyrocket because investors would now anticipate after tax earnings going up by 30-40% (whatever the impact of the reduction in tax expe ...


Even if one could make that claim with certainty, that in no way effects your original false statement. (But to play your silly little game, if it was announced tomorrow that corporate taxes were entirely eliminated, it is likely that the value of stocks across the board would plummet in reflection of what that insane act would do to government revenues and spending and the effect on the over all economy. Most investors are smarter than you and understand those kind of effects)

The money involved in transactions from sales of stock that are subject to capital gains are not taxed at the corporate level because that money is entirely independent of the corporation. That money never appears in the corporate books. It is not taxed at the corporate level.
 
2013-04-12 04:49:43 PM  

skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: Why is it ok to treat SOME capital gains preferentially? In particular, the kind of capital gains that again are mostly realized by a certain segment of society?

I don't know that there are any stats on this but it would make sense that people with lower incomes tend to have more LTCGs than STCGs, not the other way around


I don't know too many low income folks that can a) afford the kind of outlays that you need to buy stocks and hold onto them for over a year and b) tolerate the risk associated with such activity.  The only way to mitigate the risks is to have a diversified portfolio which requires even more investments in a variety of stocks across different sectors of the economy and I'd bet that there are even fewer lower income folks who can do that.  That doesn't even mention that the how much cap gains income you might even have if you are a low income investor. I mean... how many shares of IBM can a guy making 50k conceivably buy on an annual basis?

Most investments by low income folks, I think, are generally in IRAs or 401Ks where they invest in mutual funds, but withdrawals from IRAs and 401ks are taxed as regular income (unless its a Roth IRA)... so you don't get any benefit from cap gains rates there.
 
2013-04-12 04:49:49 PM  

GAT_00: I made $22k last year.


What's your degree in again?
 
2013-04-12 04:50:26 PM  

Thrag: I have. Please go ahead and advocate a 30% national sales tax


Your quote is evidence that you haven't.
 
2013-04-12 04:50:29 PM  

Lawyers With Nukes: Debeo Summa Credo: Christ you people are farking stupid. Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level. So you need to add corporate taxes to Romney's (and Obama's, to the extent any of their income was from such income) to get an appropriate comparison.

Dont bother posting that cartoon that proves my point even though you think it proves yours. Just answer me this: how much of each dollar in pretax corporate income do you believe should end up in the pockets of owners, and how much should be taken by government? Be precise. Throw out a number.

/to the extent Romneys earnings were on carried interest, then that is a different story


Let's say 90%. That way the Owners of the Means of Production still get 10% of the profit, which will still give them more money than they deserve.

The government will take their 90% cut, and use it to improve the condition of the people that did the actual work, you know, THE WORKERS.


You are a delusional neo-communist, but at least you answered my question, so thank you.

Anybody else want to take a shot at providing a number?
 
2013-04-12 04:51:35 PM  
Did he deduct the White House mortgage interest?
 
2013-04-12 04:52:21 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: This just in: the election was 6 months ago

/what does this matter now?


Well, taxes weren't due in October you know, so we had to use the time machine.
 
2013-04-12 04:52:41 PM  
theknuckler_33:

Why is it ok to treat SOME capital gains preferentially?  In particular, the kind of capital gains that again are mostly realized by a certain segment of society?

That's the problem with using morality arguments when people bring up taxation.  They fall apart quickly. Short term capital gains are taxed higher as a way to encourage more stable behavior from investors.

Moral arguments about taxation are simply retarded in my book. "It's theft if you make people that make more pay a higher rate!"  Ok, but it's not theft to make them pay more in absoloute values but pay the same percent for some reason?  Either way they are paying more.  Isn't that just as immoral? Are we all supposed to pay 10k a year and be done with it?

All I know is that I pay a higher effective rate than most people do, and I also pay a higher absoloute dollar value than most people do. Why is it fair that Romney pays a lower rate than I do? Obama seems to be beating me too, but at least that is due to huge charitable contributions.

Debeo Summa Credo: nocturnal001: Debeo Summa Credo: Christ you people are farking stupid. Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level. So you need to add corporate taxes to Romney's (and Obama's, to the extent any of their income was from such income) to get an appropriate comparison.

Dont bother posting that cartoon that proves my point even though you think it proves yours. Just answer me this: how much of each dollar in pretax corporate income do you believe should end up in the pockets of owners, and how much should be taken by government? Be precise. Throw out a number.

/to the extent Romneys earnings were on carried interest, then that is a different story

Bullshiat bullshiat bullshiat.

So then on my labor income, can I count the money that my company paid in taxes? That's money that I helped contribute so that should lower my burden right? Not to mention that it's not like we actually do that math at the corporate level. If GE pays an effective rate of 0% this year, suddenly are stockholders asked to pay 30% on their capital gains for sales of GE stock? No, they aren't.

No, your company deducted the wages they pay you from their taxable income, so they didn't pay taxes on it. You do pay taxes on that income. It's taxes once.

Conversely, companies are not allowed to to deduct dividend payments to investors. They pay a tax on earnings, and then investors pay a tax when they get what's left. Taxed twice.


Yes, I used a bad example you got me on that one.

So, then why isn't it just dividends that receive the lower rate? Why not price appreciation which has nothing to do with what the company pays out and which represents the bulk of stock returns?

Either way. Taxed twice is a silly argument. I'm taxed twice all the time. I'm taxed on my income, when I spend that income I pay federal gas taxes, local income, sales tax, a bazillion different taxes on my phone/cable internet bills, import tariffs and on and on.
 
2013-04-12 04:53:28 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Christ you people are farking stupid. Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level.


Perhaps you shouldn't talk about "stupid" when you are repeating the same untruth that has been explained to you countless times.

No, only dividends were already taxes at the corporate level. Capital gains, like the gains of a stock transaction, are not taxed at the corporate level. The money (outside of public offerings) never is even in the hands of the company. It never gets directly taxed at the corporate level since it never even exists at the corporate level.

How many time does this need to be explained to you? Hey, remember just the other day when you were complaining about "farklibs" who pretend they know about economics and business but don't? And yet here you are, demonstrating once again you don't have the first farking clue about any of these things despite this very topic being explained to you repeatedly using small words so you might one day understand. You are the perfect example of what you decry.
 
2013-04-12 04:53:39 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Christ you people are farking stupid. Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level. So you need to add corporate taxes to Romney's (and Obama's, to the extent any of their income was from such income) to get an appropriate comparison.

Dont bother posting that cartoon that proves my point even though you think it proves yours. Just answer me this: how much of each dollar in pretax corporate income do you believe should end up in the pockets of owners, and how much should be taken by government? Be precise. Throw out a number.

/to the extent Romneys earnings were on carried interest, then that is a different story

Capital gains weren't taxed at the corporate level.

I buy buy stock in DSC Corporate Cocksuckers at $10 a share. Your business is so good that 5 years later I sell it at $100 a share. The income I derive from the increase in the value of the stock never passes through the hands of DSC Corporate Cocksuckers to be taxed.

Sure it is, you idiot. Don't you think the price of the stock reflects the fact that DSCCS has to pay taxes on its earnings?

Or do you assume that all investors are as stupid as you, and don't consider the taxes that will be paid on the company's future great earnings?

Nope. DSC Corporate Cocksuckers stock value could have increased without ever showing a dime in taxable profit. Stock price is not a direct reflection of the company's profit., let alone it's tax bill.

More importantly , the money that changes hands in the stock transaction is entirely independent of the company, and in no way is subject to corporate taxes.

Stock price is absolutely reflexive of investors expectations regarding future profits, inclusive of taxes.

If we abolished corporate income taxes tomorrow, stock prices would skyrocket because investors would now anticipate after tax earnings going up by 30-40% (whatever the impact of the reduction in tax expe ...

Even if one could make that claim with certainty, that in no way effects your original false statement. (But to play your silly little game, if it was announced tomorrow that corporate taxes were entirely eliminated, it is likely that the value of stocks across the board would plummet in reflection of what that insane act would do to government revenues and spending and the effect on the over all economy. Most investors are smarter than you and understand those kind of effects)

The money involved in transactions from sales of stock that are subject to capital gains are not taxed at the corporate level because that money is entirely independent of the corporation. That money never appears in the corporate books. It is not taxed at the corporate level.


I just can't hope to get through to someone so deluded to think that the elimination of corporate taxes would cause stocks to plummet.
 
2013-04-12 04:54:57 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: theknuckler_33: I consider people who think dividend and capital gains income, which disproportionately goes to the wealthiest people in this country, is inherently different from wages made by the little people in the context of paying income taxes to be idiots.

Does that answer your question.

No, not at all. But if you are correct and corporate income is no different from wages then why is corporate income taxed twice?


It's not. Corporate income is taxed once. Personal income is taxed once. Maybe the 'owners' should just actually work for the company and pay themselves a higher salary if they want more money. At least that way it is a deductible expense on the business' balance sheet.

Oh right... working is for THOSE people.
 
2013-04-12 04:56:00 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: If we abolished corporate income taxes tomorrow, stock prices would skyrocket because investors would now anticipate after tax earnings going up by 30-40% (whatever the impact of the reduction in tax expe ...

Even if one could make that claim with certainty, that in no way effects your original false statement. (But to play your silly little game, if it was announced tomorrow that corporate taxes were entirely eliminated, it is likely that the value of stocks across the board would plummet in reflection of what that insane act would do to government revenues and spending and the effect on the over all economy. Most investors are smarter than you and understand those kind of effects)

The money involved in transactions from sales of stock that are subject to capital gains are not taxed at the corporate level because that money is entirely independent of the corporation. That money never appears in the corporate books. It is not taxed at the corporate level.

I just can't hope to get through to someone so deluded to think that the elimination of corporate taxes would cause stocks to plummet.


You can't argue because you are profoundly wrong about basic facts.
 
2013-04-12 04:56:56 PM  

theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: Why is it ok to treat SOME capital gains preferentially? In particular, the kind of capital gains that again are mostly realized by a certain segment of society?

I don't know that there are any stats on this but it would make sense that people with lower incomes tend to have more LTCGs than STCGs, not the other way around

I don't know too many low income folks that can a) afford the kind of outlays that you need to buy stocks and hold onto them for over a year and b) tolerate the risk associated with such activity.  The only way to mitigate the risks is to have a diversified portfolio which requires even more investments in a variety of stocks across different sectors of the economy and I'd bet that there are even fewer lower income folks who can do that.  That doesn't even mention that the how much cap gains income you might even have if you are a low income investor. I mean... how many shares of IBM can a guy making 50k conceivably buy on an annual basis?

Most investments by low income folks, I think, are generally in IRAs or 401Ks where they invest in mutual funds, but withdrawals from IRAs and 401ks are taxed as regular income (unless its a Roth IRA)... so you don't get any benefit from cap gains rates there.


That's why lower income people who do invest directly (outside of a pension or 401k) tend to do so via mutual funds or in some cases, buying little bits of individual stocks at a time. To me that sounds more likely than lower income people flipping stocks for a quick profit.

Sharebuilder.com is a decent way to do that since it allows you to purchase fractional shares so even if you only have $100 a month to invest or whatever, you can buy .2326 shares of AAPL or 7.39 shares of F. That's usually impossible with most "traditional" brokers unless you already own stock and are set up for automatic dividend reinvestment.
 
2013-04-12 04:58:30 PM  

nocturnal001: theknuckler_33:

Why is it ok to treat SOME capital gains preferentially?  In particular, the kind of capital gains that again are mostly realized by a certain segment of society?

That's the problem with using morality arguments when people bring up taxation.  They fall apart quickly. Short term capital gains are taxed higher as a way to encourage more stable behavior from investors.


short term cap gains are not taxed higher. they are taxed the same as regular income. LTCG are the income that is being specially treated here. I accept the premise, but if STCG promote risky or speculative investing, then tax those gains HIGHER than regular income. Taxing STCG the same as regular income is not a penalty, taxing LTCG is a benefit... one that by and large is realized only by the wealthy.
 
2013-04-12 04:58:43 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Sure it is, you idiot. Don't you think the price of the stock reflects the fact that DSCCS has to pay taxes on its earnings?


Ah, and the standard backpedaling has begun. To answer your question, it might, it might not. Stocks are crazy things. Sometimes their price has fark all to do with the taxes they pay. Stocks can rise on companies who haven't even yet mad a profit to tax.

Now let's remind you of the argument you actually made, since it was not "taxes can potentially have an effect on stock prices", it was, and I quote:

"Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level."

Are you now ready to admit that this not true?
 
2013-04-12 05:00:07 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: If we abolished corporate income taxes tomorrow, stock prices would skyrocket because investors would now anticipate after tax earnings going up by 30-40% (whatever the impact of the reduction in tax expe ...

Even if one could make that claim with certainty, that in no way effects your original false statement. (But to play your silly little game, if it was announced tomorrow that corporate taxes were entirely eliminated, it is likely that the value of stocks across the board would plummet in reflection of what that insane act would do to government revenues and spending and the effect on the over all economy. Most investors are smarter than you and understand those kind of effects)

The money involved in transactions from sales of stock that are subject to capital gains are not taxed at the corporate level because that money is entirely independent of the corporation. That money never appears in the corporate books. It is not taxed at the corporate level.

I just can't hope to get through to someone so deluded to think that the elimination of corporate taxes would cause stocks to plummet.

You can't argue because you are profoundly wrong about basic facts.


Oh and let me add this little fact that you will claim is simply impossible:

Corporate taxes went up in various ways on January 1, 2013.

Since that time the S&P 500 had risen 11.41%
 
2013-04-12 05:00:50 PM  
How does anybody know what Romney paid?
 
2013-04-12 05:01:34 PM  
Any word on what Warren Buffett's secretary paid?
 
2013-04-12 05:02:25 PM  

Lord_Baull: How does anybody know what Romney paid?


pretty sure it's in reference to his 2011 returns
 
2013-04-12 05:02:42 PM  

Thrag: Debeo Summa Credo: Christ you people are farking stupid. Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level.

Perhaps you shouldn't talk about "stupid" when you are repeating the same untruth that has been explained to you countless times.

No, only dividends were already taxes at the corporate level. Capital gains, like the gains of a stock transaction, are not taxed at the corporate level. The money (outside of public offerings) never is even in the hands of the company. It never gets directly taxed at the corporate level since it never even exists at the corporate level.

How many time does this need to be explained to you? Hey, remember just the other day when you were complaining about "farklibs" who pretend they know about economics and business but don't? And yet here you are, demonstrating once again you don't have the first farking clue about any of these things despite this very topic being explained to you repeatedly using small words so you might one day understand. You are the perfect example of what you decry.


Again, do you not realize that tax rates on corporate income affect the valuations (stock prices) of those companies, and therefore the capital gains earned upon sale of stock by owners? Do you truly believe that stock investors completely disregard corporate income taxes?

If you are too feeble minded to understand that stock prices are reflective of expected future earnigs, including anticipated taxes, then stick to dividends. At least you are bright enough to recognize that that income is taxed twice.
 
2013-04-12 05:02:54 PM  

Cletus C.: Any word on what Warren Buffett's secretary paid?


Yes.  An effective rate higher than Warren Buffet.
 
2013-04-12 05:02:57 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Thrag: I have. Please go ahead and advocate a 30% national sales tax

Your quote is evidence that you haven't.


Please correct me then. If an item costs $100 before taxes, what will be the price of that item after the "fair tax" is applied?
 
2013-04-12 05:03:30 PM  

Lawyers With Nukes: $608,611 in income....18.4% in taxes. Let that sink in for a while you guys.



Let that sink in? We've been biatching that people in the upper tax brackets haven't been paying their fair share for YEARS! Where have you been, in a Fox hole?
 
2013-04-12 05:05:28 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Cletus C.: Any word on what Warren Buffett's secretary paid?

Yes.  An effective rate higher than Warren Buffet.


that cheap fark should pay her in BRK-A stock so she should enjoy the benefits too. Here you go, Mrs Secretary. Your full year's salary. 1 share.
 
2013-04-12 05:05:39 PM  

theknuckler_33: short term cap gains are not taxed higher. they are taxed the same as regular income. LTCG are the income that is being specially treated here. I accept the premise, but if STCG promote risky or speculative investing, then tax those gains HIGHER than regular income. Taxing STCG the same as regular income is not a penalty, taxing LTCG is a benefit... one that by and large is realized only by the wealthy.


Taxing LTCG is categorically unfair because only the wealthy can take advantage of it. Your 401K or traditional IRA - now THAT is long term. Builds up over your entire life. How is it taxed? As regular income - the same as short term capital gains.

All income, of all types (including inheritance) should be taxed the exact same way.
 
2013-04-12 05:05:56 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Cletus C.: Any word on what Warren Buffett's secretary paid?

Yes.  An effective rate higher than Warren Buffet.


Maybe. She might have gotten a raise and paid less this year.
 
2013-04-12 05:06:46 PM  

madgonad: theknuckler_33: short term cap gains are not taxed higher. they are taxed the same as regular income. LTCG are the income that is being specially treated here. I accept the premise, but if STCG promote risky or speculative investing, then tax those gains HIGHER than regular income. Taxing STCG the same as regular income is not a penalty, taxing LTCG is a benefit... one that by and large is realized only by the wealthy.

Taxing LTCG is categorically unfair because only the wealthy can take advantage of it. Your 401K or traditional IRA - now THAT is long term. Builds up over your entire life. How is it taxed? As regular income - the same as short term capital gains.

All income, of all types (including inheritance) should be taxed the exact same way.


oh FFS
 
2013-04-12 05:09:03 PM  

skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: I don't know too many low income folks that can a) afford the kind of outlays that you need to buy stocks and hold onto them for over a year and b) tolerate the risk associated with such activity.  The only way to mitigate the risks is to have a diversified portfolio which requires even more investments in a variety of stocks across different sectors of the economy and I'd bet that there are even fewer lower income folks who can do that.  That doesn't even mention that the how much cap gains income you might even have if you are a low income investor. I mean... how many shares of IBM can a guy making 50k conceivably buy on an annual basis?

Most investments by low income folks, I think, are generally in IRAs or 401Ks where they invest in mutual funds, but withdrawals from IRAs and 401ks are taxed as regular income (unless its a Roth IRA)... so you don't get any benefit from cap gains rates there.

That's why lower income people who do invest directly (outside of a pension or 401k) tend to do so via mutual funds or in some cases, buying little bits of individual stocks at a time. To me that sounds more likely than lower income people flipping stocks for a quick profit.

Sharebuilder.com is a decent way to do that since it allows you to purchase fractional shares so even if you only have $100 a month to invest or whatever, you can buy .2326 shares of AAPL or 7.39 shares of F. That's usually impossible with most "traditional" brokers unless you already own stock and are set up for automatic dividend reinvestment.


I was making a point about how LTCG income disproportionately goes to the ~1% (or 5%... whatever). Sure a person with a modest income can accumulate small amounts of shares over time and eventually take advantage of the LTCG rates after years of investing... compared to someone who can buy thousands and thousands of shares (or more commonly gets them as part of their executive compensation package) every single year so that, after the first year has a steady supply of shares he can dump and only pay 15% on the income.
 
2013-04-12 05:12:33 PM  

madgonad: theknuckler_33: short term cap gains are not taxed higher. they are taxed the same as regular income. LTCG are the income that is being specially treated here. I accept the premise, but if STCG promote risky or speculative investing, then tax those gains HIGHER than regular income. Taxing STCG the same as regular income is not a penalty, taxing LTCG is a benefit... one that by and large is realized only by the wealthy.

Taxing LTCG is categorically unfair because only the wealthy can take advantage of it. Your 401K or traditional IRA - now THAT is long term. Builds up over your entire life. How is it taxed? As regular income - the same as short term capital gains.

All income, of all types (including inheritance) should be taxed the exact same way.


So, like a "flat" tax?
 
2013-04-12 05:12:56 PM  

skullkrusher: madgonad: theknuckler_33: short term cap gains are not taxed higher. they are taxed the same as regular income. LTCG are the income that is being specially treated here. I accept the premise, but if STCG promote risky or speculative investing, then tax those gains HIGHER than regular income. Taxing STCG the same as regular income is not a penalty, taxing LTCG is a benefit... one that by and large is realized only by the wealthy.

Taxing LTCG is categorically unfair because only the wealthy can take advantage of it. Your 401K or traditional IRA - now THAT is long term. Builds up over your entire life. How is it taxed? As regular income - the same as short term capital gains.

All income, of all types (including inheritance) should be taxed the exact same way.

oh FFS


I agree with him (her?)... although I'm ok with an exemption on inheritances up to a certain amount ($5 mil?).
 
2013-04-12 05:13:22 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Who in the hell is Mitt Romney?


Isn't he the guy from that book that stops working because of the "takers"?
 
2013-04-12 05:14:38 PM  
oh god some double-tax moron is in this thread.

Income is income is income.  Don't give me some word-salad rich guys paid nerds to come up with to justify why they get special privileges.
 
2013-04-12 05:15:03 PM  

Thrag: Dancin_In_Anson: Thrag: I have. Please go ahead and advocate a 30% national sales tax

Your quote is evidence that you haven't.

Please correct me then. If an item costs $100 before taxes, what will be the price of that item after the "fair tax" is applied?


According to them, it would still be $100.

How you ask? It's magic!
 
2013-04-12 05:20:24 PM  

theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: madgonad: theknuckler_33: short term cap gains are not taxed higher. they are taxed the same as regular income. LTCG are the income that is being specially treated here. I accept the premise, but if STCG promote risky or speculative investing, then tax those gains HIGHER than regular income. Taxing STCG the same as regular income is not a penalty, taxing LTCG is a benefit... one that by and large is realized only by the wealthy.

Taxing LTCG is categorically unfair because only the wealthy can take advantage of it. Your 401K or traditional IRA - now THAT is long term. Builds up over your entire life. How is it taxed? As regular income - the same as short term capital gains.

All income, of all types (including inheritance) should be taxed the exact same way.

oh FFS

I agree with him (her?)... although I'm ok with an exemption on inheritances up to a certain amount ($5 mil?).


the reason you pay regular income taxes when you draw down a 401k or a traditional IRA is because you don't pay any taxes on the money you put it (up to a point). You don't accrue LT or ST cap gains while you trade, you don't pay cap gains taxes on investments in the account,  while getting the benefit of using pre-tax money. It's an awesome deal, not the consolation prize.
 
2013-04-12 05:21:11 PM  
[reaches through the monitor, twists LawyersWith Nukes' head off, begins to gnaw thoughtfully on the squishy bits]
 
2013-04-12 05:21:25 PM  

pacified: oh god some double-tax moron is in this thread.


It's not just some dobule tax moron, it's fark preeminent double tax moron. Someone who has had the facts pointed out to them literally dozens of times and yet still goes on repeating the same lies, all the while calling everyone else ignorant. It's like this guy has a bot to alert him of any mention of capital gains taxes so he can make the same bougs claims that all capital gains are taxed at the corporate level.

We've got both a "double tax" and a "fair tax" moron. My favorite types of economic morons. Although the fair tax morons always demonstrate that they lead all others in sheer ignorance and idiocy, usually by making it clear they cannot understand either basic math or the actual fair tax proposal itself (which today's fair tax moron seems about to demonstrate unless he flees the thread).
 
2013-04-12 05:22:14 PM  

Lord_Baull: Lawyers With Nukes: $608,611 in income....18.4% in taxes. Let that sink in for a while you guys.

Let that sink in? We've been biatching that people in the upper tax brackets haven't been paying their fair share for YEARS! Where have you been, in a Fox hole?


Last I checked, there were no atheists in Fox holes. ;)

Me and my ilk have been watching from the sidelines, endlessly amused at the electorate unquestioningly supporting the Wrestlemania that is American politics. Even when presented with absolute proof, IN BLACK AND WHITE, that the politicos are merely actors playing their assigned roles, my fellow tax livestock citizens simply refuse to see, so complete is their indoctrination.
 
2013-04-12 05:22:17 PM  

theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: I don't know too many low income folks that can a) afford the kind of outlays that you need to buy stocks and hold onto them for over a year and b) tolerate the risk associated with such activity.  The only way to mitigate the risks is to have a diversified portfolio which requires even more investments in a variety of stocks across different sectors of the economy and I'd bet that there are even fewer lower income folks who can do that.  That doesn't even mention that the how much cap gains income you might even have if you are a low income investor. I mean... how many shares of IBM can a guy making 50k conceivably buy on an annual basis?

Most investments by low income folks, I think, are generally in IRAs or 401Ks where they invest in mutual funds, but withdrawals from IRAs and 401ks are taxed as regular income (unless its a Roth IRA)... so you don't get any benefit from cap gains rates there.

That's why lower income people who do invest directly (outside of a pension or 401k) tend to do so via mutual funds or in some cases, buying little bits of individual stocks at a time. To me that sounds more likely than lower income people flipping stocks for a quick profit.

Sharebuilder.com is a decent way to do that since it allows you to purchase fractional shares so even if you only have $100 a month to invest or whatever, you can buy .2326 shares of AAPL or 7.39 shares of F. That's usually impossible with most "traditional" brokers unless you already own stock and are set up for automatic dividend reinvestment.

I was making a point about how LTCG income disproportionately goes to the ~1% (or 5%... whatever). Sure a person with a modest income can accumulate small amounts of shares over time and eventually take advantage of the LTCG rates after years of investing... compared to someone who can buy thousands and thousands of shares (or more commonly gets them as part of their executive compensation package) every single year so that, afte ...


that's just a matter of wealthier people having more money to invest and therefore earn greater amounts. I don't think there's a bias against lower income people when it comes to paying LT vs ST cap gains. If they have cap gains, it makes sense to me that they are more often than not of the LT variety
 
2013-04-12 05:23:14 PM  
I want to remind some people in this thread that Obama has advocated for higher taxes on high income earners like himself.  He has said this many times in his speeches.  If his effective tax rate of 18% is too low, that's not because he wants it or likes it.  He's willing to pay more in taxes because he can afford to do so.
 
2013-04-12 05:25:17 PM  

Thrag: If an item costs $100 before taxes, what will be the price of that item after the "fair tax" is applied?


$100
 
2013-04-12 05:26:32 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Thrag: If an item costs $100 before taxes, what will be the price of that item after the "fair tax" is applied?

$100


Oh sweet mother of God......
 
2013-04-12 05:28:41 PM  

Lawyers With Nukes: Lord_Baull: Lawyers With Nukes: $608,611 in income....18.4% in taxes. Let that sink in for a while you guys.

Let that sink in? We've been biatching that people in the upper tax brackets haven't been paying their fair share for YEARS! Where have you been, in a Fox hole?

Last I checked, there were no atheists in Fox holes. ;)

Me and my ilk have been watching from the sidelines, endlessly amused at the electorate unquestioningly supporting the Wrestlemania that is American politics. Even when presented with absolute proof, IN BLACK AND WHITE, that the politicos are merely actors playing their assigned roles, my fellow tax livestock citizens simply refuse to see, so complete is their indoctrination.


what the fark are you trying to say?  Spit it out man.
 
2013-04-12 05:29:12 PM  

Lawyers With Nukes: Wow, just wow. The hypocrisy of the POTUS & FLOTUS is just too delicious for words.

$608,611 in income....18.4% in taxes. Let that sink in for a while you guys.


Deductions and effective tax rates...how do they work.
Here's a tip- real lawyers would know.
 
2013-04-12 05:30:00 PM  

Lawyers With Nukes: Me and my ilk have been watching from the sidelines, endlessly amused at the electorate unquestioningly supporting the Wrestlemania that is American politics. Even when presented with absolute proof, IN BLACK AND WHITE, that the politicos are merely actors playing their assigned roles, my fellow tax livestock citizens simply refuse to see, so complete is their indoctrination.


There's a distinct lack of "sheeple" in your post.
 
Displayed 50 of 330 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report