Democrats - you'd better be careful about how you approach a capital gains tax increase

[brycejones]

Again - this just doesn't seem to be getting through. Many seniors can't work, even if they wanted to. That avenue of income is closed to them.

Again what doesn't seem to be getting through to you is making tax relief dependent on income accounts for seniors who have exhausted their savings and can't work further as well as other people who may need the help. While ensuring those with the means do continue to meet their obligations.

 

[Blackjack200]

I personally don't think it's right to suddenly foist more burden on a person or a couple who lived their lives frugally, invested properly, and now gets a modest return to help support themselves. Any increase in capital gains tax shouldn't start below a few hundred thousand a year. Probably closer to a million.

The implied obverse of this is that it's okay for people with meager savings have to suffer and scrape by in their later years because they lived their lives indulgently, invested poorly, and now fuck them. Same old prosperity gospel bullshit.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not so sure about that. I get the feeling they want to raise all brackets of capital gains.

You want to fear monger people into thinking that Dems intend to screw seniors, which is bullshit. Most of us want to tax income as income regardless of the source.

Hell, most seniors pay earned income rates on withdrawals from their 401k's. I do.

 

[dasherHampton]

The implied obverse of this is that it's okay for people with meager savings have to suffer and scrape by in their later years because they lived their lives indulgently, invested poorly, and now fuck them. Same old prosperity gospel bullshit.

Prosperity gospel? You mean the one where God bestows riches on good people?

I don't subscribe to that at all.

 

[Blackjack200]

Prosperity gospel? You mean the one where God bestows riches on good people?

I don't subscribe to that at all.

Yes, that's the narrow definition of prosperity gospel. But it's closely related to the idea that accumulated wealth is a sign of virtue, and the term is often used to refer to that idea.

 

[dawheat]

Democrats are almost always in favor of progressive taxes. I doubt that Capital Gains would be any different. You tax someone making 10,000 in Capital gains less than someone yearning 10,000,000 in capital gains. Notice that almost everyone in here is talking about some form of progressive method of taxing capital gains. You don't need age based relief if you have income based relief. Sure, they might not be able to work, but if they are earning a million plus in capital gains they don't need to. We could comfortable tax them at 50% and they would still be in the top 10%.

Is there any taxable income that shouldn't be treated as regular income? Sure you might need to adjust the tiers a bit, but seems like it would greatly simplify the tax code and make it more fair.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Is there any taxable income that shouldn't be treated as regular income? Sure you might need to adjust the tiers a bit, but seems like it would greatly simplify the tax code and make it more fair.

We need to be a little carful of double dipping, but otherwise I don't think that any income should be fully tax free.

 

[zinfamous]

You know I'm not talking about millionaire seniors here, right?

I'm talking about middle class couples who scrimped and saved and garner maybe $10,000 a year off of dividends and such.

Well, you weren't talking about them before. It was seniors capital gains vs other capital gains. now it's special seniors and their capital gains vs some other seniors and their capital gains. Your original statement was defending the holy specialty of capital gains which, for the most part, regular Americans find to be rather distasteful....even those that are retired and depending on investment/401k withdrawals/dividends....of course when you start talking about such individuals with many pools of money to draw from, you are talking about very wealthy people which, in reality, tend to be older/retired.

I don't think you'll find anyone that doesn't want to find some reasonable means of making things easier for the middle-class, low income pensioners, but favoring the generally very wealthy seniors, and extremely wealthy billionaires/senior billionaires seniors by by refusing to address the capital gains theft because some seniors have different needs is probably a very bad idea.

 

[zinfamous]

If a Senior is only getting money from dividends then its unlikely they would pay ANY tax and if they are hard done by sell the investment.
Nobody says you should die with a pile in the bank, you save for a rainy day and if its raining that's when you spend it. Yes you may end up with zero or worse.
That's where you could/should have saved more over your life. I have forgone many expensive vacations bigger houses and more toys to prioritize not having to eat macaroni and bologna in my senior years

That's fine thinking, but it's not like you can as easily do those things in your senior years either, if that's what you were hoping for. I hope you aren't also eating macaroni and bologna these years simply in order to prevent that in the future.

I mean, you or I or anyone could be dead tomorrow. Just saying.

 

[desy]

Of course you have to live for today too, I don't sit on it like leprecaun gold either. The specific example was a senior getting 10 k in dividends which means at a 5% return he has a nest egg of 200K or even more if its likely money markets or something like that 300K. that with SS it might be time to burn the principle. Income is income.
I see many grasshoppers around and not enough ants

 

[dank69]

You know what - you're right. I didn't look at this properly.

SSI isn't taxable so a retiree or retired couple collecting SS and $10,000 in dividends wouldn't owe any taxes on the dividend. So that example was bad.

Wouldn't apply until the retiree/retired couple exceeds $38,500/$77,200 a year in dividends.

So I guess maybe I was barking at the moon a little there.

You should be commended for not having a rigid mind and being able to adjust your world view when presented with new evidence. Every person on this board should follow this example as much as possible.

 

[senseamp]

Passive and inherited income should be taxed higher than earned income, not lower, IMO. Especially now that we know supply side economics is a flop.

 

[hal2kilo]

You want to fear monger people into thinking that Dems intend to screw seniors, which is bullshit. Most of us want to tax income as income regardless of the source.

Hell, most seniors pay earned income rates on withdrawals from their 401k's. I do.

I know I'm going to get beat here next year when I withdraw to pay down my mortgage so I can afford to live on SS.

Sorry! clean up on isle 7. Once again the post was mixed with stale quotes.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Tax it as regular income earned over the holding period. That's generally little benefit to top earners but a huge benefit to average and even moderately well off investors. You'd probably have to cap the look-back at some number of years for sake of simplicity.

 

[Jhhnn]

Tax it as regular income earned over the holding period. That's generally little benefit to top earners but a huge benefit to average and even moderately well off investors. You'd probably have to cap the look-back at some number of years for sake of simplicity.

Why bother? Tax it at earned income rates when securities are liquidated.

 

[Jhhnn]

Of course you have to live for today too, I don't sit on it like leprecaun gold either. The specific example was a senior getting 10 k in dividends which means at a 5% return he has a nest egg of 200K or even more if its likely money markets or something like that 300K. that with SS it might be time to burn the principle. Income is income.
I see many grasshoppers around and not enough ants

Seniors are loathe to dip into the Principal unless forced.

Shee-it. They won't even send you a complimentary cyanide pill when your account runs dry.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Why bother? Tax it at earned income rates when securities are liquidated.

Because I don't want to pay a higher tax rate on something I actually earned over a period greater than a single year.

 

[Jhhnn]

Because I don't want to pay a higher tax rate on something I actually earned over a period greater than a single year.

So what? When people take money out of their 401K's they pay earned income rates.

 

[Zorba]

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/28/att...re-seeking-higher-taxes-on-capital-gains.html

I don't think an increase on top earners in necessarily a bad idea, but a blanket increase on capital gains is going to bring out pretty much every retired person who depend on dividends as part of their retirement income, and with a vengeance no doubt.

I personally don't think it's right to suddenly foist more burden on a person or a couple who lived their lives frugally, invested properly, and now gets a modest return to help support themselves. Any increase in capital gains tax shouldn't start below a few hundred thousand a year. Probably closer to a million.

Considering a lot (the vast majority probably) of retirement investments for middle class retirees would be in 401Ks, IRAs, or Roth IRAs. This change would make no difference. 401K and IRA is taxed as income and Roth IRA isn't taxed.

 

[Zorba]

Tax it as regular income earned over the holding period. That's generally little benefit to top earners but a huge benefit to average and even moderately well off investors. You'd probably have to cap the look-back at some number of years for sake of simplicity.

How exactly would that work?

 

[alcoholbob]

If you're not willing to compromise on anything the rates will most likely stay the same.

That's actually factually false. No one wins a negotiation by starting at the compromise position. If anything your position is the one that will guarantee rates will stay the same.

 

[ondma]

With topics like guaranteed annual income, reparations, and totally unrealistic green initiatives (ahem AOC) being floated about by the Dems, I think an increase in the capital gains tax is far less likely to garner voter opposition.

 

[dasherHampton]

Considering a lot (the vast majority probably) of retirement investments for middle class retirees would be in 401Ks, IRAs, or Roth IRAs. This change would make no difference. 401K and IRA is taxed as income and Roth IRA isn't taxed.

It's possible, I guess, that my idea of dividend stocks as part of a portfolio is old fashioned.

My father and all of his friends were heavily invested in income producing stocks. I remember them discussing the topic frequently. I just assumed successful retirees would have some of their portfolio structured similarly.

I'm personally invested in dividend stocks to a certain degree as well. I would never consider not having them in my portfolio.

 

[dasherHampton]

That's actually factually false. No one wins a negotiation by starting at the compromise position. If anything your position is the one that will guarantee rates will stay the same.

I don't really want to continue this tangent but I disagree.

His position was "tax all capital gains as income". That's not a compromise. That's an absolute.

I offered "Ok, then tax everyone but retirees as income". That's a compromise.

 

[Jhhnn]

With topics like guaranteed annual income, reparations, and totally unrealistic green initiatives (ahem AOC) being floated about by the Dems, I think an increase in the capital gains tax is far less likely to garner voter opposition.

GOP politicians will fight it to their last breath, bet on that. Their mega rich donors won't pay for anything less.