15% tax rate for Mitt Romney

So your linking of a Gallup Poll, which reports that 59% Americans think rich people don't pay enough is somehow an indictment of Mitt?
 
My question is, how the hell do you claim you plan to balance a budget and reduce the deficit if the highest earners in this country can have a tax rate 15-20% LESS than low, middle class people pay?
__________________________________________________

It's not, almost half of my pay goes to pay for taxes. romney is in the super rich class. he pays 15% because a large majority of his income is from investments and capital gains which are taxed a lower amount. he gets to benefit from it but you can't raise the tax or it affects people like me who are taxed to death. stop being so jealous. everyone should be taxed equally and if you get so rich that you give up salary and bonuses to be taxed at a lower rate, so be it.
 
I'll take up for mcbrett here to a point. It's friggin' BS for the government to tax people who work for a living at higher rates than those who make money through investments. No, that isn't class envy. It's simply saying the government shouldn't screw anybody harder or less hard than it screws anyone else. We shouldn't tax rich folks harder than middle class folks, but we shouldn't do the reverse either.

Now does that mean we should raise taxes? No. That's the problem with Buffet's mentality, and it's where I'd break with mcbrett. What we should do is simply eliminate the distinction between capital gains and ordinary income and then lower the overall rates (especially corporate rates which are absurd). There should be no net tax increase. If anything there should be a net tax cut.

Some Republicans say that the capital gains tax is double taxation, so we shouldn't tax the gains at all. Nonsense. You don't get taxed on what you invest. You get taxed on the gain (and get to offset losses), which hasn't yet been taxed. (The argument is much stronger if we're talking about dividend income.)

Some also say that giving preferential treatment to capital gains income encourages investment. So what? If we're capitalists, then the free market should dictate how and the extent to which people invest, not government preferences and handouts. The government should be neutral on investment.

Get rid of the tax shelters, special treatment, narrow deductions, and inside BS. Have one very low rate that applies to all income. If there is a deduction (which there shouldn't be), it should be a standard deduction that applies equally to everybody.

(Ideal world - if and only if you can constitutionally ban the income tax, a national sales tax is the best option. Sh*t-can the tax accountants and the tax lawyers.)
 
The very rich also tend to use muni bond, muni money market funds and the like to lower taxes. Capital Gains and Dividend taxes are lower, but a lot of the time they are on income from corporations. And the corporations were taxed on the income when they maide it. I don't see Mitt as evil on this, but McBrett's call for fairness in taxation isn't laughable either.
 
To have money to invest, you have to earn it. When you earn money, it is taxed. This money that you have left over after taxes and after expenses is called savings. Saving have already been taxed (and not spent).

Savings that have been taxed are often invested in capital assets (investment or real estate). An increase in the value of a capital asset that gives it a higher worth than the purchase price is a capital gain. When such assets are sold, the return on this invested after tax money is then taxed again. This is the so-called capital gains tax. It is not a 15% tax on income. It is a 15% tax on money that has already been taxed and then invested.
 
Still amazed at the number of non rich people who feel that need to protect rich people from onerous taxes, even as rich people seek to increase the tax burden on the working and middle classes and lower the capital gains below its current level.
Amazing.
 
Someone please explain the difference between reaching a new, higher, tax bracket vs. your overall E-F-F-E-C-T-I-V-E tax rate. I don't have the time or the patience.
 
Perhaps a new term should be introduced into the political lexicon; hidden entitlements. The term could be used in place of capital gains tax, much like job producer has taken the place of rich person.
 
Deez, you have much a much stronger argument than mcbrett because: a) you're not hiding behind two different kinds of taxable streams of cash, claiming they're the same; and b) insulting everyone who doesn't agree with you in an overtly partisan manner, while simultaneously claiming to be some sort of independent thinker. Your argument is well presented until this:
In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
[b}Me: Savings that have been taxed are often invested in capital assets (investment or real estate). An increase in the value of a capital asset that gives it a higher worth than the purchase price is a capital gain. When such assets are sold, the return on this invested after tax money is then taxed again. This is the so-called capital gains tax. It is not a 15% tax on income. It is a 15% tax on money that has already been taxed and then invested.

You: Wrong. It is a 15 percent tax on a GAIN. If you buy $10K worth of stock and later sell it for $15K, you don't pay the tax on the $10K that was already taxed. You pay the tax on the $5K that has never been taxed. The return of the principle has already been taxed (and obviously isn't subject to the capital gains tax), but the gain has not been taxed.

Well, first if you would have read more carefully, you would notice that you and I gave the exact same definition for capital gains. So I guess that is good. Second, the part where we disagree is whether one should consider earnings from after tax money - money that has been taxed or money that hasn't been taxed previously. I'll wait for your post.

Also keep in mind that if inflation increases 3% per year, you could pay taxes on capital growth that doesn't exist. Consider a $100K investment for 50 years and at the end of the 50 years you sell the investment for $200K and then pay capital gains tax: You would pay $15K in taxes and net $85K in "supposed" profit. However, if inflation was 3%, just to keep up with inflation the investment would need to pay out $438,390.

Me: Unlike income from work, losses are also possible with Investments.

You: There's no risk of losing salary? Sure there is. You can lose your job (unless you work for the government, of course). You can get hit with catastrophe that takes your salary away. Life is full of risks for everybody.

No, work is not risky. If you work, you get paid.


Me: Because of this risk of losing money, and because it helps grow the economy and bring in money to feed the government, investing is encouraged.

You: I know. It shouldn't be. The amount that gets invested should be based on the merits of the investment and the assets and risk aversion or absence of risk aversion of the investor. The government should be neutral on the issue.


Neutral would be not taxing capital gains at all. However, that is not what you are advocating. You are advocating taxing it the same as other income. That is a mistake because it would slow the growth of GDP. Slowing national growth disproportionally hurts the poor and increase the class warfare rhetoric that we are currently experiencing.

Me: It would also pressure the middle class and poor and the so-called rich (making around $100K-$200K) by slowing down corporate growth. If companies can't finance their growth, they will not grow their workforce as fast and will not increase pay as fast.



You: If you believe in an economically activist government, that's fine, but as conservatives, I thought we believed in a hands-off, laissez-faire government that shouldn't interfere with the economy. Growth and jobs should be based on economic need and merit, not government preference.

Laissez-faire government government would advocate no capital gains tax. I think you are confused on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top