GOP ACA Replacement Imminent....Predictions

[Jhhnn]

That makes sense. Looks like historically speaking it briefly was 35% but for the most part it hovered around 25%. This is no where near a 70% level. Such a level would be insane!

It's worth noting that the 1970s were horrible for the stock market. The Dow Jones hit 1000 in 1972 and fell from there for the rest of the decade. It didn't hit 1000 again until 1982.

That's called a post losing the Vietnam war slump combined with enormous shocks in the energy market, oil specifically.

http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif

 

[esquared]

Those are earned income tax rates. The discussion is about capital gains. I'm really puzzled why all the confusion.

No, its says Top rate on capital gains. They list (by year), pretty much follows the chart that engineer put out there. in his post.

That 70% level was during the Harding and Wilson administration (1918-1920), which isn't shown on Engineer's post.

Another link:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-capital-gains-and-taxes

 

[Engineer]

yeah, aside from maxing my 401k, everything else is roth or taxable

i only expect to be in the %15 bracket when i need to withdraw the traditional 401k money, but then again, who knows what will happen with tax rates. they are a crapshoot.

Just wait until the GOP gets to put a regressive SALES tax in there. That will screw up your Roth accounts!!!

 

[K1052]

Romney said at just about every speech in 2012 that he would repeal OC. So he certainly didn't support it in the form that it was passed

And? That doesn't refute the point.

 

[brianmanahan]

Just wait until the GOP gets to put a regressive SALES tax in there. That will screw up your Roth accounts!!!

that's why i try to live on 15-20$k a year! sales tax can't hurt me if i hardly buy anything.

 

[K1052]

Gawd. The Democratic state legislature stuffed it down his throat with veto proof majorities.

Parts of it yes, but the overall program wasn't. Some items were vetoed but the leg went bs k later and overrode. Heritage wouldn't have spent their time slobbering over him for stuff like the mandate if he wasn't involved which he was.

 

[Sea Ray]

No, its says Top rate on capital gains. They list (by year), pretty much follows the chart that engineer put out there. in his post.

That 70% level was during the Harding and Wilson administration (1918-1920), which isn't shown on Engineer's post.

Another link:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-capital-gains-and-taxes

I don't see anything in that link that refers to cap gains. I did find this:

From 1913 to 1921, capital gains were taxed at ordinary rates, initially up to a maximum rate of 7 percent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States

I think you mistakenly added a zero. It was 7% during WWI

 

[Sea Ray]

And? That doesn't refute the point.

My point is that Romney never approved of the ACA law

 

[brycejones]

My point is that Romney never approved of the ACA law

Well duh in 2012 no republican could run for dog catcher without bringing up how much they hated the ACA.

 

[Engineer]

I don't see anything in that link that refers to cap gains. I did find this:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States

I think you mistakenly added a zero. It was 7% during WWI

From his original link (sorted)...

http://federal-tax-rates.insidegov.com/

Select sort by capital gains and then max to min.

(2nd number in each year is capital gains). Have not verified this data...simply cut and paste after sorting. There are also several years (as late as the mid 70's) that have 39.x% max capital gains. My graph, earlier, didn't show that. Not sure why.

1918
Add to Compare
Woodrow Wilson

77
percent

77
percent
$1
MILLION
United States Dollars

1919
Add to Compare
Woodrow Wilson

73
percent

73
percent
$1
MILLION
United States Dollars

1920
Add to Compare
Woodrow Wilson

73
percent

73
percent
$1
MILLION
United States Dollars

1921
Add to Compare
Warren G. Harding

73
percent

73
percent
$1
MILLION
United States Dollars

1917
Add to Compare
Woodrow Wilson

67
percent

67
percent
$2
MILLION
United States Dollars

 

[K1052]

Well duh in 2012 no republican could run for dog catcher without bringing up how much they hated the ACA.

Yep

 

[Zorba]

yeah, aside from maxing my 401k, everything else is roth or taxable

i only expect to be in the %15 bracket when i need to withdraw the traditional 401k money, but then again, who knows what will happen with tax rates. they are a crapshoot.

Something I hadn't really realized until a few weeks ago. If you are truly maxing your 401k but planning on using a mix of Roth and Capital Gains with the 401K to lower your taxes in retirement, look into the Required Minimum Distributions. At least for where I plan on being at 70.5, I am going to be fucked on Taxes due to RMD. Roth 401k would be smarter, but I would end up investing a lot less now, so I'm sticking with the traditional.

 

[Sea Ray]

From his original link (sorted)...

http://federal-tax-rates.insidegov.com/

Select sort by capital gains and then max to min.

(2nd number in each year is capital gains). Have not verified this data...simply cut and paste after sorting. There are also several years (as late as the mid 70's) that have 39.x% max capital gains. My graph, earlier, didn't show that. Not sure why.

1918
Add to Compare
Woodrow Wilson

77
percent

77
percent
$1
MILLION
United States Dollars

1919
Add to Compare
Woodrow Wilson

73
percent

73
percent
$1
MILLION
United States Dollars

1920
Add to Compare
Woodrow Wilson

73
percent

73
percent
$1
MILLION
United States Dollars

1921
Add to Compare
Warren G. Harding

73
percent

73
percent
$1
MILLION
United States Dollars

1917
Add to Compare
Woodrow Wilson

67
percent

67
percent
$2
MILLION
United States Dollars

That's in contradiction to other sources so I'd question the veracity of it.

According to this source, the highest cap gains rate in the entire world is Denmark at 42%

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robert...-but-president-obama-wants-more/#52842949792b

Once again, it is insane to even suggest raising the cap gains to 70%, insane...

 

[Engineer]

That's in contradiction to other sources so I'd question the veracity of it.

According to this source, the highest cap gains rate in the entire world is Denmark at 42%

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robert...-but-president-obama-wants-more/#52842949792b

Once again, it is insane to even suggest raising the cap gains to 70%, insane...

For the record, I'm not suggesting 70% anything. Also, there are other sites that have tables that show that capital gains matched income tax rates of the period, which were in the 70+ % range.

 

[Sea Ray]

For the record, I'm not suggesting 70% anything. Also, there are other sites that have tables that show that capital gains matched income tax rates of the period, which were in the 70+ % range.

So what is your point? Let's agree that 70% is extremely rare and could be described as an outlier in American history. Can we agree that it is NOT a historically reasonable rate?

Once again this is what I am refuting:

Capital gains get re-introduced to the historically reasonable rate of 70%

.

 

[Engineer]

So what is your point? Let's agree that 70% is extremely rare and could be described as an outlier in American history. Can we agree that it is NOT a historically reasonable rate?

Once again this is what I am refuting:

.

My point is to provide data that at one time, it appears that we had a 70%+ capital gains rate. Nothing more. I think that capital gains should be taxed at ordinary income but that's for a different discussion (thread).

 

[Jaskalas]

but that's for a different discussion (thread).

Maybe you're right. I'll avoid going off topic here.

I will say that it'd take ~15% tax to cover medical in this country. If people want healthcare, that's how you soak the costs to give everyone coverage.

 

[Sea Ray]

Maybe you're right. I'll avoid going off topic here.

I will say that it'd take ~15% tax to cover medical in this country. If people want healthcare, that's how you soak the costs to give everyone coverage.

A 15% tax on what?

 

[theeedude]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4724754/US-fairground-makeshift-hospital.html
Third world style health care in Virginia, which didn't expand Medicaid.

 

[Sea Ray]

My point is to provide data that at one time, it appears that we had a 70%+ capital gains rate. Nothing more. I think that capital gains should be taxed at ordinary income but that's for a different discussion (thread).

Not all sources agree:

The top rate was 49.88% in 1977. The lowest rate was 7% in 1913-1921. The current rate is 15%, expected to go to 39.6% or more in 2011. By capital gains, we refer to long-term gains, however they were defined in each tax year...From 1913 to 1921, capital gains were taxed at ordinary rates, initially up to a top rate of 7 percent. Because of concern that the higher income tax rates introduced during World War I reduced capital gains tax revenues, from 1922 to 1934 taxpayers were allowed an alternative tax rate of 12.5 percent on capital gains on assets held at least two years. From 1934 to 1941, taxpayers could exclude percentages of gains that varied with the holding period.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/18...-possible-relevance-to-future-taxation?page=4

Like I said earlier, if it ever was 70% it was a huge outlier. My guess is that very few if anyone actually paid 70%.

 

[Engineer]

Not all sources agree:



https://seekingalpha.com/article/18...-possible-relevance-to-future-taxation?page=4

Like I said earlier, if it ever was 70% it was a huge outlier. My guess is that very few if anyone actually paid 70%.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf

Also..(capital gains were taxed as regular income at maximum marginal rates).

http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/THM1901?OpenDocument

1918-1919 The Revenue Act of 1918, actually passed in early 1919, made relatively few major changes in the tax structure, but it did raise rates on individual and corporate income, corporate excess profits, and estates. The law provided for normal and surtax rates that rose the dizzying level of 77 percent on the biggest incomes. Corporations were given an exemption of $2,000, but rates were raised to 12 percent on net taxable income. The law also rectified numerous mistakes in earlier revenue laws, most of which had been enacted in great haste.

The income tax now occupied a central place in the federal revenue system. In 1916, income taxes had been providing 16 percent of federal revenue. From 1917 to 1920, that percentage ranged as high as 58 percent. The tax was now a pillar of federal finance. Still, however, it remained a narrow levy. In 1920, only 5.5. million returns showed any tax due.

May 27: Wilson makes his famous "politics is adjourned" speech to urge higher taxes, including levies on income, estates, and excess profits.

Meanwhile, the BIR began a massive recruitment campaign to help redress its chronic personnel shortage. More than 1,000 auditors were hired in the first six months of 1919. The agency still struggled to keep up, however; delays in the printing of tax forms and instructions prompted an extension of the filing deadline from March 1 to April 1.

William G. McAdoo, Wilson's Secretary of the Treasury. Photo courtesy of National Archives.
October 27: Volstead Act, providing for enforcement of the new Prohibition Amendment, passed over Wilson's veto. BIR commissioner was charged with enforcing the act. A new Prohibition Unit was created on December 22, allowed a budget of 2 million under the Volstead Act.
You're probably right that few paid though.

 

[Jaskalas]

A 15% tax on what?

My policies are based on taxing personal income. Though labor is being divested from production, so the target will necessarily shift over time.

 

[Sea Ray]

My policies are based on taxing personal income. Though labor is being divested from production, so the target will necessarily shift over time.

This would be an interesting sell. This would show the people that such an entitlement is not free. I think many would oppose it because they'd much rather someone else pay for it...like "the rich" or their employer. I could go for that but there is the question of why should the working folks, who are only about a third of the country, pay for everyone's healthcare?

 

[VRAMdemon]

Why does Trump think health insurance costs $12 a year? maybe its because of a commercial for the Gerber Life Plan he saw on Fox News...

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/07/did...12-a-year-come-from-this-fox-news-commercial/

Sarah Huckabee Sanders dodged the question of why Trump believes that. On George Stephanopolis' show, he asked her if she had a response to that, as she'd promised to ask about it once before. She said that she hadn't had a chance yet to ask about it, but good golly she sure would. She IS busy. Every time she lies, she has to be saved again. All day long, lie then save, lie then save, lie then save. No time for anything else.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Something I hadn't really realized until a few weeks ago. If you are truly maxing your 401k but planning on using a mix of Roth and Capital Gains with the 401K to lower your taxes in retirement, look into the Required Minimum Distributions. At least for where I plan on being at 70.5, I am going to be fucked on Taxes due to RMD. Roth 401k would be smarter, but I would end up investing a lot less now, so I'm sticking with the traditional.

In general tax laws are designed to make sure that you can't get around taxes unless you have a LOT of disposable income, much more than the average person can possible afford. If there was any easy method to avoid taxes too many people would use it.

The same thing is true for investing in the market, no matter how you invest the system is rigged to end up costing you almost all your earnings unless you can make very large investments, somewhat through taxes and somewhat through fees and commissions. Then every 10-20 years the market gets shook up to tranfer all the gains by the small investors to the large ones. This is what most of the bubbles are all about. They are a method to wipe out the small investors and increase the value of the large ones. If you are scrimping and saving now in the hopes of a better retirement, for the most part all you are doing is living poor so you can give your money to the 1%.