"Fair Share"

[Genx87]

Well when you push the progressive system like we are it is going to be harder for people to claim they will give you a tax cut if you arent paying any taxes. According to this article it just confirms what most already knew. The bottom 50% of wage earners in this country dont pay any federal incomes taxes. So how does one get a tax cut or rebate check from the govt when they dont pay taxes? They dont.

It appears Obama's plan wont be any different. Unless he is straight transferring wealth to the bottom 50% by giving them money or something.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
So since those who earn over 10mill pay less effective rate(still not what the OP was about...not that it matters around here I guess) it isn't progressive? Is BHO only going to raise taxes on those over 10 mill? How do you suppose he'll do that? No matter what he does won't affect this "problem" due to those at the bottom of those "brackets"(no matter where you put them) pay a higher effective rate than those at the top of the same "bracket".

You finally are getting it!!!

Progressive, in terms of taxation means that you are paying a higher PERCENTAGE...not dollar amount. Why is this so hard for you and Fern to grasp? No matter how many times you two try to pound the square into the round hole...it just isn't going to fit.

BHO's proposal is to raise the EFFECTIVE rate on the upper bracket and cut it on the lower. Now that is a progressive tax.

No, I've "gotten it" all along. What you don't "get" is that "progressive" doesn't only mean rate.

:roll: So you think BHO is going to raise the top bracket only? :laugh: Oh to be young and naive again.... :laugh:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice dance, Fern. The fact remains, as Bowfinger points out, that the federal tax rate is regressive at the top, with the top 400 paying basically the same rate as those making $50-75K. There's no way to say for sure that it's due to the hedge fund manager effect, as you propose, simply because the source of those huge incomes is confidential IRS information... You're making attributions for which there is no evidence.

And it's not like lean times affect the wealthy the same way that middle or lower income families are affected- those at the top have huge assets, resources that can be liquidated as required to support their lifestyles should they choose to do so. That can't be said for the vast majority of middle earners, at all...

Why won't you people address the "regressive" nature of our bracket system?

Hmm... could it be because it doesn't have to do with class envy? Hmmm....

It's been addressed, repeatedly. The taxable income bracket system itself is progressive, but not all income falls into the normal definition of taxable income- capital gains are taxed at a flat 15%, regardless of income level. Brackets and capital gains have nothing to do with each other.

Bowfinger points out how other kinds of AGI alterations like tax shelters further distort the picture, understating top incomes significantly, raising the apparent tax rate for those at the top...

As for your charge of "narrow minded definition of progressive", I figure you'd use a broad minded definition of night as day, if it suited your purposes, piss down our collective leg while claiming that it's raining, too- pretty much the thrust of the WSJ piece in your OP and your ongoing efforts in general.

If you're not being paid to post your usual disinformative drivel, then you should be, because you're actually pretty good at it....

You are incorrect and obviously not grasping what is being talked about. The bracket system is not "progressive" except in it's shell. Within the brackets it is not "progressive". But again, that probably doesn't matter to you who push "progressive" taxation because it's really only about taking more from the "rich"(whatever "rich" means that day).

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
So since those who earn over 10mill pay less effective rate(still not what the OP was about...not that it matters around here I guess) it isn't progressive? Is BHO only going to raise taxes on those over 10 mill? How do you suppose he'll do that? No matter what he does won't affect this "problem" due to those at the bottom of those "brackets"(no matter where you put them) pay a higher effective rate than those at the top of the same "bracket".

You finally are getting it!!!

Progressive, in terms of taxation means that you are paying a higher PERCENTAGE...not dollar amount. Why is this so hard for you and Fern to grasp? No matter how many times you two try to pound the square into the round hole...it just isn't going to fit.

BHO's proposal is to raise the EFFECTIVE rate on the upper bracket and cut it on the lower. Now that is a progressive tax.

No, I've "gotten it" all along. What you don't "get" is that "progressive" doesn't only mean rate.

:roll: So you think BHO is going to raise the top bracket only? :laugh: Oh to be young and naive again.... :laugh:

Actually it does.

From the free financial dictionary:

Characterizes a convex tax schedule that results in a higher effective tax rate on higher income levels.

 

[GTKeeper]

/ Thread

Cad was proven wrong. There is no point in discussing anything further.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
So since those who earn over 10mill pay less effective rate(still not what the OP was about...not that it matters around here I guess) it isn't progressive? Is BHO only going to raise taxes on those over 10 mill? How do you suppose he'll do that? No matter what he does won't affect this "problem" due to those at the bottom of those "brackets"(no matter where you put them) pay a higher effective rate than those at the top of the same "bracket".

You finally are getting it!!!

Progressive, in terms of taxation means that you are paying a higher PERCENTAGE...not dollar amount. Why is this so hard for you and Fern to grasp? No matter how many times you two try to pound the square into the round hole...it just isn't going to fit.

BHO's proposal is to raise the EFFECTIVE rate on the upper bracket and cut it on the lower. Now that is a progressive tax.

No, I've "gotten it" all along. What you don't "get" is that "progressive" doesn't only mean rate.

:roll: So you think BHO is going to raise the top bracket only? :laugh: Oh to be young and naive again.... :laugh:

Actually it does.

From the free financial dictionary:

Characterizes a convex tax schedule that results in a higher effective tax rate on higher income levels.

Actually it doesn't. Try reading more than just what you were looking for.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
So since those who earn over 10mill pay less effective rate(still not what the OP was about...not that it matters around here I guess) it isn't progressive? Is BHO only going to raise taxes on those over 10 mill? How do you suppose he'll do that? No matter what he does won't affect this "problem" due to those at the bottom of those "brackets"(no matter where you put them) pay a higher effective rate than those at the top of the same "bracket".

You finally are getting it!!!

Progressive, in terms of taxation means that you are paying a higher PERCENTAGE...not dollar amount. Why is this so hard for you and Fern to grasp? No matter how many times you two try to pound the square into the round hole...it just isn't going to fit.

BHO's proposal is to raise the EFFECTIVE rate on the upper bracket and cut it on the lower. Now that is a progressive tax.

No, I've "gotten it" all along. What you don't "get" is that "progressive" doesn't only mean rate.

:roll: So you think BHO is going to raise the top bracket only? :laugh: Oh to be young and naive again.... :laugh:

Actually it does.

From the free financial dictionary:

Characterizes a convex tax schedule that results in a higher effective tax rate on higher income levels.

Actually it doesn't. Try reading more than just what you were looking for.

How about this then....you link us to a financial definition of progressive in relation to taxation that does NOT mention rate.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
So since those who earn over 10mill pay less effective rate(still not what the OP was about...not that it matters around here I guess) it isn't progressive? Is BHO only going to raise taxes on those over 10 mill? How do you suppose he'll do that? No matter what he does won't affect this "problem" due to those at the bottom of those "brackets"(no matter where you put them) pay a higher effective rate than those at the top of the same "bracket".

You finally are getting it!!!

Progressive, in terms of taxation means that you are paying a higher PERCENTAGE...not dollar amount. Why is this so hard for you and Fern to grasp? No matter how many times you two try to pound the square into the round hole...it just isn't going to fit.

BHO's proposal is to raise the EFFECTIVE rate on the upper bracket and cut it on the lower. Now that is a progressive tax.

No, I've "gotten it" all along. What you don't "get" is that "progressive" doesn't only mean rate.

:roll: So you think BHO is going to raise the top bracket only? :laugh: Oh to be young and naive again.... :laugh:

Actually it does.

From the free financial dictionary:

Characterizes a convex tax schedule that results in a higher effective tax rate on higher income levels.

Actually it doesn't. Try reading more than just what you were looking for.

How about this then....you link us to a financial definition of progressive in relation to taxation that does NOT mention rate.

You only want to limit it to "financial definitions"? :roll: Ofcourse those definitions will include rates because that's what most people think and parrot since it's what they learned in school. However, the idea of progressiveness isn't that narrow. Again, the OP isn't talking about RATES - YOU and the other twits keep trying to make it about rates just like you are trying to make "progressive" only about rates. It's not.
Now if you'd actually turn off you ideological parrotting and knee jerking you just might be able to understand. However, that is unlikely to happen - especially here in P&N. Meh... suit yourself. I guess you have every right to not look at things from a different perspective if you wish...

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Actually it doesn't. Try reading more than just what you were looking for.

How about this then....you link us to a financial definition of progressive in relation to taxation that does NOT mention rate.

You only want to limit it to "financial definitions"? :roll: Of course those definitions will include rates because that's what most people think and parrot since it's what they learned in school. However, the idea of progressiveness isn't that narrow. Again, the OP isn't talking about RATES - YOU and the other twits keep trying to make it about rates just like you are trying to make "progressive" only about rates. It's not.

Now if you'd actually turn off you ideological parrotting and knee jerking you just might be able to understand. However, that is unlikely to happen - especially here in P&N. Meh... suit yourself. I guess you have every right to not look at things from a different perspective if you wish...

So you are telling me and everyone else on the interwebs that progressive in terms of taxes is no longer part of a financial conversation and deserves to be in some other realm where financial definitions are not applicable?

If that is NOT the case, then show either a definition or example where someone is taxed progressively without rates being the primary defining indicator.

Once again, the OP is making a fallacious and intellectually dishonest argument that you are buying into because it fits into YOUR ideological views. It is he who is being the "twit" for trying to present such a stupid argument in the first place and you for being an even bigger "twit" for trying to defend it in the face of all reason and logic.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Actually it doesn't. Try reading more than just what you were looking for.

How about this then....you link us to a financial definition of progressive in relation to taxation that does NOT mention rate.

You only want to limit it to "financial definitions"? :roll: Of course those definitions will include rates because that's what most people think and parrot since it's what they learned in school. However, the idea of progressiveness isn't that narrow. Again, the OP isn't talking about RATES - YOU and the other twits keep trying to make it about rates just like you are trying to make "progressive" only about rates. It's not.

Now if you'd actually turn off you ideological parrotting and knee jerking you just might be able to understand. However, that is unlikely to happen - especially here in P&N. Meh... suit yourself. I guess you have every right to not look at things from a different perspective if you wish...

So you are telling me and everyone else on the interwebs that progressive in terms of taxes is no longer part of a financial conversation and deserves to be in some other realm where financial definitions are not applicable?

If that is NOT the case, then show either a definition or example where someone is taxed progressively without rates being the primary defining indicator.

Once again, the OP is making a fallacious and intellectually dishonest argument that you are buying into because it fits into YOUR ideological views. It is he who is being the "twit" for trying to present such a stupid argument in the first place and you for being an even bigger "twit" for trying to defend it in the face of all reason and logic.

*yawn* - you obviously aren't willing to stop your knee... When you can start reading and understanding....come on back but at this point it's worthless to continue since you are so stuck on your narrow view of things and so stuck on "rate". What's that saying..... "stuck on stupid"?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Actually it doesn't. Try reading more than just what you were looking for.

How about this then....you link us to a financial definition of progressive in relation to taxation that does NOT mention rate.

You only want to limit it to "financial definitions"? :roll: Of course those definitions will include rates because that's what most people think and parrot since it's what they learned in school. However, the idea of progressiveness isn't that narrow. Again, the OP isn't talking about RATES - YOU and the other twits keep trying to make it about rates just like you are trying to make "progressive" only about rates. It's not.

Now if you'd actually turn off you ideological parrotting and knee jerking you just might be able to understand. However, that is unlikely to happen - especially here in P&N. Meh... suit yourself. I guess you have every right to not look at things from a different perspective if you wish...

So you are telling me and everyone else on the interwebs that progressive in terms of taxes is no longer part of a financial conversation and deserves to be in some other realm where financial definitions are not applicable?

If that is NOT the case, then show either a definition or example where someone is taxed progressively without rates being the primary defining indicator.

Once again, the OP is making a fallacious and intellectually dishonest argument that you are buying into because it fits into YOUR ideological views. It is he who is being the "twit" for trying to present such a stupid argument in the first place and you for being an even bigger "twit" for trying to defend it in the face of all reason and logic.

*yawn* - you obviously aren't willing to stop your knee... When you can start reading and understanding....come on back but at this point it's worthless to continue since you are so stuck on your narrow view of things and so stuck on "rate". What's that saying..... "stuck on stupid"?

I'll tell you what...I don't want to be seen in that light. I've always thought of myself as an open-minded person (hence my forum name) and not one that automatically accepts conventional wisdom just because that is the norm. I want to give you the chance to not only edumacate me, but everyone else here.

Please explain how someone is paying a lower percentage and is being taxed more progressively as a result. Remember the parameters....the income taxes paid have risen less than the income earned.

 

[fskimospy]

GOD GUYS WHY DO WE HAVE TO BE SO NARROW MINDED AS TO USE THE DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS OF WORDS INSTEAD OF DEFINITIONS CAD MAKES UP.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
*yawn* - you obviously aren't willing to stop your knee... When you can start reading and understanding....come on back but at this point it's worthless to continue since you are so stuck on your narrow view of things and so stuck on "rate". What's that saying..... "stuck on stupid"?

Are you for real?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
So since those who earn over 10mill pay less effective rate(still not what the OP was about...not that it matters around here I guess) it isn't progressive? Is BHO only going to raise taxes on those over 10 mill? How do you suppose he'll do that? No matter what he does won't affect this "problem" due to those at the bottom of those "brackets"(no matter where you put them) pay a higher effective rate than those at the top of the same "bracket".

You finally are getting it!!!

Progressive, in terms of taxation means that you are paying a higher PERCENTAGE...not dollar amount. Why is this so hard for you and Fern to grasp? No matter how many times you two try to pound the square into the round hole...it just isn't going to fit.

BHO's proposal is to raise the EFFECTIVE rate on the upper bracket and cut it on the lower. Now that is a progressive tax.

It ain't hard for me to grasp. And I've repeatedly demonstrated it for you. Yet you wish to distort.

I've shown you the rate charts etc which demonstrate progressivity

I've already pointed out that LT cap gains loophole should be fixed.

But it's horrendously stupid idea to tax (non-fund mgr) LT cap gains at ordinary rates unless you adjust for inflation. A lot of what looks like LT cap gains income actually isn't; it's just inflation.

If we adjusted for inflation as some other countries do, statistically we'd have a helluva lot less income showing up in our national numbers.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
-snip-
I would suggest, however, that simply taxing capital gains at the same rate as earned income would help tremendously.

Insane, unless you also advocate adjusting for inflation, for the reason I posted above.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
-snip-
I would suggest, however, that simply taxing capital gains at the same rate as earned income would help tremendously.

Insane, unless you also advocate adjusting for inflation, for the reason I posted above.

Fern

No more insane than paying normal tax rates on interest income above $1500...

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
-snip-
I would suggest, however, that simply taxing capital gains at the same rate as earned income would help tremendously.

Insane, unless you also advocate adjusting for inflation, for the reason I posted above.

Fern

No more insane than paying normal tax rates on interest income above $1500...

Why does it have to be above $1,500 to pay normal tax rates? I thought you paid normal marginal rates on ALL interest income?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Fern

But it's horrendously stupid idea to tax (non-fund mgr) LT cap gains at ordinary rates unless you adjust for inflation. A lot of what looks like LT cap gains income actually isn't; it's just inflation.

Then it's stupid to tax my income and it's gains unless adjusting for inflation too. I also want a tax deduction on losses (such as my newly found loss of income)

 

[jackace]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
-snip-
I would suggest, however, that simply taxing capital gains at the same rate as earned income would help tremendously.

Insane, unless you also advocate adjusting for inflation, for the reason I posted above.

Fern

What do you mean by adjusting for inflation?

Do you mean if you invest say $1000 in 1985 and you sell the stock in 2008 for $400,000 that the true profit of the investment is not $399,000?

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
-snip-
I would suggest, however, that simply taxing capital gains at the same rate as earned income would help tremendously.

Insane, unless you also advocate adjusting for inflation, for the reason I posted above.

Fern

No more insane than paying normal tax rates on interest income above $1500...

Why does it have to be above $1,500 to pay normal tax rates? I thought you paid normal marginal rates on ALL interest income?

Edit reply- My mistake- I misinterpreted the info provided here-

http://taxes.about.com/od/income/qt/interest_income.htm

We do pay normal income taxes on all earned interest, with few exceptions. My mistake.

The point stands, nonetheless.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
So since those who earn over 10mill pay less effective rate(still not what the OP was about...not that it matters around here I guess) it isn't progressive? Is BHO only going to raise taxes on those over 10 mill? How do you suppose he'll do that? No matter what he does won't affect this "problem" due to those at the bottom of those "brackets"(no matter where you put them) pay a higher effective rate than those at the top of the same "bracket".

You finally are getting it!!!

Progressive, in terms of taxation means that you are paying a higher PERCENTAGE...not dollar amount. Why is this so hard for you and Fern to grasp? No matter how many times you two try to pound the square into the round hole...it just isn't going to fit.

BHO's proposal is to raise the EFFECTIVE rate on the upper bracket and cut it on the lower. Now that is a progressive tax.

It ain't hard for me to grasp. And I've repeatedly demonstrated it for you. Yet you wish to distort.

I've shown you the rate charts etc which demonstrate progressivity

I've already pointed out that LT cap gains loophole should be fixed.

But it's horrendously stupid idea to tax (non-fund mgr) LT cap gains at ordinary rates unless you adjust for inflation. A lot of what looks like LT cap gains income actually isn't; it's just inflation.

If we adjusted for inflation as some other countries do, statistically we'd have a helluva lot less income showing up in our national numbers.

Fern

The progressive tax rates already scale based on inflation. Capital gains (realized gains mind you, not simply the gains but any gains after liquidation of assets) should be paid at the rate those gains fall into on the income scale.

People who save for a lifetime and keep their money in various funds will have massive gains, but if they only pull out a little bit every year to pay for living expenses after they retire, they'll pay the current tax rates as if it were income. Someone who buys a stock which explodes overnight, sells it all and pockets $100,000 without reinvesting it will pay taxes on the $100,000.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: jackace

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
-snip-
I would suggest, however, that simply taxing capital gains at the same rate as earned income would help tremendously.

Insane, unless you also advocate adjusting for inflation, for the reason I posted above.

Fern

What do you mean by adjusting for inflation?

If you an asset for a long time, as many do, at lot of it's increase in value is due to inflation.

Let's say you have asset X, purchased 20 years ago for $100,000 and sell it this year for $250,000, your gain would really only be about $75K (instead of $150K) if you adjust for inflation.

Link

(If you input $100K from 1988 to 2008 in the above calculator you'll get the $175K amount)

I used the CPI as the measure of inflation.

Edit: For countries that adjust LT cap gains for inflation (IIRC Israel for example) you would show that you paid $175K for the asset (instead of only $100K), thus your taxable gain would be $75K and not $150K as we do here in the US. However, those countries that adjust for inflation offer no special rate for LT cap gains.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
-snip-
I would suggest, however, that simply taxing capital gains at the same rate as earned income would help tremendously.

Insane, unless you also advocate adjusting for inflation, for the reason I posted above.

Fern

No more insane than paying normal tax rates on interest income above $1500...

Interest income is taxed annually, and the tax paid on it only after it is received. The concept of inflation is irrelevant.

Inflation becomes a more serious concern, and significantly larger %, the longer the time period.

Fern

 

[BoberFett]

As I already pointed out, income tax brackets adjust for inflation already.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
As I already pointed out, income tax brackets adjust for inflation already.

That's exactly why capital gains should be taxed at marginal rates, IMO.