• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is it fair?

O

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
For someone who makes their money primarily from investments (e.g. capital gains) to pay an effective 15% tax rate vs. someone who works a steady job for a living and has to pay at a much higher rate (25-35%)?

I ask all of you. Is this fair? Especially if said person is making over a million dollars a year in income from these investments.
 
The status quo was never meant to be fair or to stimulate the economy. It was meant to abusively maintain ultimate positions of power for the few, while advantageously warding off all-comers' advances.

The fact that we the people possess limited or inadequate countermeasures is the more pressing problem, especially in a land where Congress primarily represents lobbyists.
 
Last edited:
OneOfTheseDays said:
For someone who makes their money primarily from investments (e.g. capital gains) to pay an effective 15% tax rate vs. someone who works a steady job for a living and has to pay at a much higher rate (25-35%)?

I ask all of you. Is this fair? Especially if said person is making over a million dollars a year in income from these investments.
Click to expand...

It depends - if I had to take my own money and put it in the venture that I will get paid in the said investments, then it probably is. For most of these set ups, you have to buy into whatever partnership you're getting paid from, which then makes sense for the future compensation to be treated as a return on investment (and taxed as capital gain).

It does get iffy in my mind if the partnership loans you the money to buy into the partnership - then it seems like a hack on the tax code.
 
Last edited:
OneOfTheseDays said:
Is it fair?

For someone who makes their money primarily from investments (e.g. capital gains) to pay an effective 15% tax rate vs. someone who works a steady job for a living and has to pay at a much higher rate (25-35%)?

I ask all of you. Is this fair? Especially if said person is making over a million dollars a year in income from these investments.
Click to expand...

I'm sure this is in reference to Romney.

No it is not especially from someone running for President.

It is also Unpatriotic of him laundering money in overseas accounts.

He should be declared ineligible to run and tried and convicted of tax evasion and thrown in PMITA Federal Prison.
 
So lets say a company earns millions of dollars. One million will goto the investor. Unless you are GE, the company will pay $300,000 in taxes on that million to the feds and for arguments sake.. 6.5% goes to the state of Tennessee. Total taxes so far $365,000.

So $635,000 goes to the investor who then pay 15% on that money. So now the investor gets $539,750.


Now granted some of that investment money could come from selling stocks or real estate sales, etc... but the taxman gets his cut.

Are we to tax that money even further? make the investor pay more and the corporation pay less?
 
dmcowen674 said:
I'm sure this is in reference to Romney.

No it is not especially from someone running for President.

It is also Unpatriotic of him laundering money in overseas accounts.

He should be declared ineligible to run and tried and convicted of tax evasion and thrown in PMITA Federal Prison.
Click to expand...

I don't think tax evasion means what you think it means.
 
OneOfTheseDays said:
For someone who makes their money primarily from investments (e.g. capital gains) to pay an effective 15% tax rate vs. someone who works a steady job for a living and has to pay at a much higher rate (25-35%)?

I ask all of you. Is this fair? Especially if said person is making over a million dollars a year in income from these investments.
Click to expand...

No it is not fair, fair would be a single rate applied to income from all sources to everyone regardless of socioeconomic status. No loopholes, no deductions, no exemptions just you made x from all sources of income this year send us y% of it.
 
dmcowen674 said:
I'm sure this is in reference to Romney.

No it is not especially from someone running for President.

What is the difference between a regular guy and a one that is running for president?

It is also Unpatriotic of him laundering money in overseas accounts.

It is perfectly legal to have and maintain offshore accounts.

He should be declared ineligible to run and tried and convicted of tax evasion and thrown in PMITA Federal Prison.
Click to expand...

Ineligible on what grounds?

Tried and convicted of what illegal action?

He hasn't done anything accept irritate you. which is perfectly legal.
 
rudder said:
So lets say a company earns millions of dollars. One million will goto the investor. Unless you are GE, the company will pay $300,000 in taxes on that million to the feds and for arguments sake.. 6.5% goes to the state of Tennessee. Total taxes so far $365,000.

So $635,000 goes to the investor who then pay 15% on that money. So now the investor gets $539,750.


Now granted some of that investment money could come from selling stocks or real estate sales, etc... but the taxman gets his cut.

Are we to tax that money even further? make the investor pay more and the corporation pay less?
Click to expand...

Is it also fair that same "investors" are also free of any liability from what the company does other than the cost of their investment? Thats why the "double taxation" exists and shouldn't be a concideration at all in the taxes.
 
Money talks! And it talks BIG TIME to those who make the laws...congress.
So, when is the last time you send your lobbyist up to that gleaming dome on hill?
Never you say? Hmmmm Me thinkest we royally screwed in that case.
And guess who wants to be living right in the den of thieves?
An fat X lobbyist, and a guy shitting $1000 bills out his ass.
Good luck! 😀
 
Linflas said:
No it is not fair, fair would be a single rate applied to income from all sources to everyone regardless of socioeconomic status. No loopholes, no deductions, no exemptions just you made x from all sources of income this year send us y% of it.
Click to expand...

All income should be treated as income, regardless of its source. That being said, I agree with you except that you seem to be advocating a flat tax. I do think that the bracket structure is fair, but we do need to do something about the loopholes/deductions.
 
Hedge fund managers pay capital gains taxes against the investment performance of other people's money, not their own. They charge their fees for their management (work) and a percentage of profits over a certain level.

Their fees are based on their performance and work. Why should it not be taxed as ordinary income?
 
OneOfTheseDays said:
For someone who makes their money primarily from investments (e.g. capital gains) to pay an effective 15% tax rate vs. someone who works a steady job for a living and has to pay at a much higher rate (25-35%)?

I ask all of you. Is this fair? Especially if said person is making over a million dollars a year in income from these investments.
Click to expand...

What risk are you taking with your salary? And some of the investment income is taxed at the corporate tax rate before being taxed at capital gains rates.

And who cares if it is fair? Life isnt fair. Pull up your big kid pants and join reality.
 
Last edited:
MomentsofSanity said:
Hedge fund managers pay capital gains taxes against the investment performance of other people's money, not their own. They charge their fees for their management (work) and a percentage of profits over a certain level.

Their fees are based on their performance and work. Why should it not be taxed as ordinary income?
Click to expand...

It's crazy to argue that hedge fund managers deserves to be taxed more because they work for it than if they don't.

That's the fault of the tax structures which tax unearned income more than income people work for. Fix that and tax unearned income as much or more.
 
No, it's not fair. Life's not fair. Get over it.

However, historically we can see that having all the power and wealth concentrated to a very few leads to great problems. Policies which aid this are not wise.
 
OneOfTheseDays said:
For someone who makes their money primarily from investments (e.g. capital gains) to pay an effective 15% tax rate vs. someone who works a steady job for a living and has to pay at a much higher rate (25-35%)?

I ask all of you. Is this fair? Especially if said person is making over a million dollars a year in income from these investments.
Click to expand...

When you do your taxes this year, calculate your effective tax rate. VERY, VERY few people actually pay even 15% tax on their income.

EDIT: I advocate shifting to The Fair Tax. This fixes many problems.
 
DrPizza said:
No, it's not fair. Life's not fair. Get over it.

However, historically we can see that having all the power and wealth concentrated to a very few leads to great problems. Policies which aid this are not wise.
Click to expand...

Rather than taking the money from people one doesn't like to achieve "fair" I submit a comprehensive plan for long lasting job creation would be a better use of time and resources. I'm not saying some tax reform isn't desirable, but neither will it fix anything. Vengeance may be sweet but ultimately useless.
 
I believe the capital gains exclusion was originally intended to be fair, and fair to all, but it has been broadened so much it now frequently works a manifest injustice, esp. for the Romney and other Wall Street types.

There are many small businesses that require a lot of capital and work but throw off very little annual income. Farming is an example. I had a relative that farmed all his life, was extremely hard working and successful. Nearly every year of his farming life he took home, at best, near minimum wage as his compensation. In his seventies he retired, sold the farm and netted well into the seven figures. While he ran the farm he generated a lot of income and jobs for his community. To me that is an ideal situation for a reduced capital gains tax.

Where we run into problems is treating publically traded stocks, etc. as capital gains. There is no economic reason to do so. Neither society nor GM benefits at all if I make a profit on GM stock I've held, no matter how long I held it. And don't get me going on the BS "deferred compensation" Romney and the other fat cats ruthlessly exploit.

With substantial tuning the capital gains tax exclusion would be a limited but highly effective tax policy fostering economic growth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top