Obama: Raise Taxes, Penalize Business

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Vic

I agree with your point, that both candidates need to focus on spending, however, I already pointed out that year-over-year decreases were seen during Truman's admin following WWII. Probably the biggest reduction in government size in history.

Sure he may have decreased spending *IN SOME AREAS* but NOT overall. His budgets INCREASED EVERY YEAR he was in office.

The annual federal budgets decreased *OVERALL* in the Truman years immediately following WWII. Text Text

And Presidents, as the chief executive, do write the proposed budgets. Obviously, Congress passes them, as with all legislation.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ


and btw, capital gains tax now will hit a huge chunk of the middle class.

Is that right? Most people in the middle class have retirement accounts and they are subject to regular income tax rates, not capital gains taxes.

CNBC just reported that the average person/family making $70,000 per year saved a whopping $43 per year in taxes with the new capital gains rates by BushCo. They went on to state that the average millionaire saved $39,000+ for EVERY million that they have in assets. Quite telling, isn't it (i.e. middle class don't own shit when it comes to enough equity to get a large capital gains cut).

How about lower my marginal rate on my income (i.e. my labor) and bring up the capital gains tax (i.e. making money on trading stocks) and meet in the middle. Buffet said it best when he stated that his $70,000 a year secretary should not be paying 28% per year on her income when he pays a net 17% on his earning per year.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
"Windfall profits tax"....that's a great way to destroy an already weakened economy. Cause, you know, it worked so well in the 70s

As any student who's taken Econ 101 at the local junior college can tell you, higher taxes don't encourage production; they discourage it. But Senate Democrats apparently played hooky the day taxes were discussed. They should at least have read the report from their own nonpartisan Congressional Research Service in 2006.

It shows that from 1980 to 1986, the last time the U.S. had a windfall profits tax on oil companies, the results were disappointing. As the chart shows, oil companies were hit hard by the tax. And in line with basic economic theory, they produced less oil, not more.

"Over the entire 1980-1986 period," the study said, "the (windfall profits tax) reduced domestic oil production from between 320 million barrels . . . and 1,268 million barrels."

The study also concluded: "The effect of reducing domestic oil production was to increase the level of imported oil."

At the time, the U.S. imported about 30% of its oil; today, we import about 60%. In part, that jump in oil dependency was due to the huge tax advantage we gave foreign oil companies in the 1980s ? and to the continuing advantage we give them today by refusing to let our oil companies produce more crude from our own reserves.

The Democratic Party's bad energy policies in the 1970s hit poor Americans hardest, while delivering our energy future into the hands of OPEC's unelected poobahs. Now they want to do it again.

By the way, if they try to sell you on the idea that this will be a deficit-cutting move, don't believe it. Revenues from the windfall tax were far less than expected, because producers pumped less and nontaxed imports flooded our market. Compared with a forecast of $393 billion in windfall tax revenues from 1980 to 1988, Congress got a mere $80 billion.

In short, the windfall profits tax is a loser ? on every level.

Likewise, the Senate's proposals for new penalties on "price gouging" are also fated to fail. This we know because when Jimmy Carter tried price controls, they resulted in massive shortages, blocklong lines at gas stations and, ultimately, gasoline rationing.

Perhaps the worst lie uttered in defense of price controls and higher taxes is that the less well-off will benefit. Don't believe it.

Even as Democrats mouth pieties about "bringing down the price of gasoline" for the poor, they will in fact be hitting working Americans with a big tax hike. "A windfall profits tax on big oil companies may sound good in theory," the nonpartisan Tax Foundation said last week, "but it will be paid by individuals." Big Oil doesn't pay the tax; you do.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi criticized President Bush for offering "two ways of dealing with the energy crisis ? drill and veto." But that's a far better plan than anything the Democrats have offered.

Tapping the hundreds of billions of barrels of oil that we have on land and offshore makes sense. It would add supply and lower the price. Every Democratic plan now on the board ? every one ? would do the opposite.

Knowing what we do, it's unfathomable that Congress would ponder a return to '70s-era energy policies that nearly destroyed our economy. But that's exactly what it's doing.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Carbo
Penalize Big Oil

Wow for supposedly being so smart. That is one dumbass idea.
The only people who will actually feel that are American drivers when the cost is passed along at the pump.

That doesn't make sense. Companies raise prices to offset costs, not regain profit lost through taxation.

I posted this earlier but got no response, so I'll add more. While I disagree with Obama with tax discrimination, I don't see how a tax on profit will be passed to consumers. profits are fluid and are acceptable in all forms. Costs are not. Besides, these huge profits are not because of innovation but speculation so I fail to see how this taxation will lead to lower investment or increase costs.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ


and btw, capital gains tax now will hit a huge chunk of the middle class.

Is that right? Most people in the middle class have retirement accounts and they are subject to regular income tax rates, not capital gains taxes.

CNBC just reported that the average person/family making $70,000 per year saved a whopping $43 per year in taxes with the new capital gains rates by BushCo. They went on to state that the average millionaire saved $39,000+ for EVERY million that they have in assets. Quite telling, isn't it (i.e. middle class don't own shit when it comes to enough equity to get a large capital gains cut).

How about lower my marginal rate on my income (i.e. my labor) and bring up the capital gains tax (i.e. making money on trading stocks) and meet in the middle. Buffet said it best when he stated that his $70,000 a year secretary should not be paying 28% per year on her income when he pays a net 17% on his earning per year.

So, average middle class saved 6.14%, and the rich saved a whopping .039%....the middle calss fared better.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Vic

I agree with your point, that both candidates need to focus on spending, however, I already pointed out that year-over-year decreases were seen during Truman's admin following WWII. Probably the biggest reduction in government size in history.

Sure he may have decreased spending *IN SOME AREAS* but NOT overall. His budgets INCREASED EVERY YEAR he was in office.

The annual federal budgets decreased *OVERALL* in the Truman years immediately following WWII. Text Text

And Presidents, as the chief executive, do write the proposed budgets. Obviously, Congress passes them, as with all legislation.

Not according to this budget doc from whitehouse.gov. *shrug*
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
and btw, capital gains tax now will hit a huge chunk of the middle class.
Is that right? Most people in the middle class have retirement accounts and they are subject to regular income tax rates, not capital gains taxes.

CNBC just reported that the average person/family making $70,000 per year saved a whopping $43 per year in taxes with the new capital gains rates by BushCo. They went on to state that the average millionaire saved $39,000+ for EVERY million that they have in assets. Quite telling, isn't it (i.e. middle class don't own shit when it comes to enough equity to get a large capital gains cut).

How about lower my marginal rate on my income (i.e. my labor) and bring up the capital gains tax (i.e. making money on trading stocks) and meet in the middle. Buffet said it best when he stated that his $70,000 a year secretary should not be paying 28% per year on her income when he pays a net 17% on his earning per year.
So, average middle class saved 6.14%, and the rich saved a whopping .039%....the middle calss fared better.
Sorry, but I have to ask. Are you being intentionally dishonest, or do your math skill really suck that badly? You made two huge errors, both in favor of your argument, overstating the effective benefit to the middle class by a factor of 100 while simultaneously understating the effective benefit to the rich by a factor of 100. It seems hard to believe that you accidentally made two, opposite errors on the same calculation given that those errors are the only way you could pretend to make your point.

For the record, based on the numbers above, the average $70K person/family realized a 0.06% benefit (43/70,000 * 100) while the average millionaire realized a 3.9% benefit (39,000/1,000,000 * 100), 65 times greater. It is, in fact, the wealthy who see the overall greatest benefit from the preferential treatment of capital gains income compared to earned income.
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,112
1
0
Some Americans are sheeple that will cheer for the windfall profits tax, but for those of you who are not, or at least want to understand what this means, you need to understand who that tax will be levied on.

You can read this breakdown (by the way, this was the Clinton's Undersecretary of Energy and Commerce, not some Right Wing analysis):

http://www.energytomorrow.org/...Shapiro_Pham_Study.pdf

To break it down for you:

Only 1.5% are owned by oil company executives.

Almost 43 percent of oil and natural gas company shares are owned by mutual funds and asset management companies that have mutual funds. Mutual funds manage accounts for 55 million U.S. households with a median income of $68,700.

Twenty seven percent of shares are owned by other institutional investors like pension funds. In 2004, more than 2,600 pension funds run by federal, state and local governments held almost $64 billion in shares of U.S. oil and natural gas companies. These funds represent the major retirement security for the nation's current and retired soldiers, teachers, and police and fire personnel at every level of government.

Fourteen percent of shares are held in IRA and other personal retirement accounts. Forty five million U.S. households have IRA and other personal retirement accounts, with an average account value of just over $22,000.

You see, "Big Oil" is you, and me.

I know that some of you are going to say "I don't own any mutual funds with oil company stock!" or "I only invest in green energy funds," Well do you have a bank account or a credit card, or a home loan, or a car? Do you work for the state, or a privately held company with a retirement plan? Do you go to a school that is funded through public bonding?

There is simply not enough time to trace it all out for you, but in a nut shell, Mr. Obama is threatening to punish our economy because he knows you don't know any better.

He knows what he's saying, and who he's talking to. A "windfall profits tax" on an industry that is 98.5% publicly owned is simply a proposal for another inefficient redistribution program. You see he wants to use the tax funds not burnt in the bureaucracy to help you pay for energy. Just keeps prices high in an already over speculative industry.

Now do your own research. You will be less susceptible to this type of pandering.

The good news is that he can't possibly be this stupid. I think he understands that this type of promise will have to be gutted before he takes office. He has no intension on tanking the US economy for the sake of growing government. At least I hope.

The speculative profits in the oil industry are taken outside of the US by the Saudis, by the refineries in Venezuela, and by every other foreign country & company responsible for supplying us with our energy. So he is offering to punish us rather than them! . . . and you know what? The American people are going to cheer!

Cliff's Notes Version:

Negatives:

- Instant reduction in pension funds, IRA's, 401Ks, and mutual funds

- Punish profitability

- Discourage further production

- Competitive disadvantage for American firms (benefits State oil Co of China, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iran, etc.)

- Encourage large oil companies to move over seas

- Environmental damage (American oil is among the most environmentally regulated)

Positives:

- marginal increase in governmental revenues


How does this help solve the problem? At best, they will take money from my investments and give a small percentage of that back to me. I just don't get it.

If the oil companies are doing some sort of market manipulation that is illegal, nail them. If they are just making lots of money off of us oil addicted fools, so what?


It is a socialist idea that making profits is a vice; I consider the real vice is making losses. ? Winston Churchill
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
and btw, capital gains tax now will hit a huge chunk of the middle class.
Is that right? Most people in the middle class have retirement accounts and they are subject to regular income tax rates, not capital gains taxes.

CNBC just reported that the average person/family making $70,000 per year saved a whopping $43 per year in taxes with the new capital gains rates by BushCo. They went on to state that the average millionaire saved $39,000+ for EVERY million that they have in assets. Quite telling, isn't it (i.e. middle class don't own shit when it comes to enough equity to get a large capital gains cut).

How about lower my marginal rate on my income (i.e. my labor) and bring up the capital gains tax (i.e. making money on trading stocks) and meet in the middle. Buffet said it best when he stated that his $70,000 a year secretary should not be paying 28% per year on her income when he pays a net 17% on his earning per year.
So, average middle class saved 6.14%, and the rich saved a whopping .039%....the middle calss fared better.
Sorry, but I have to ask. Are you being intentionally dishonest, or do your math skill really suck that badly? You made two huge errors, both in favor of your argument, overstating the effective benefit to the middle class by a factor of 100 while simultaneously understating the effective benefit to the rich by a factor of 100. It seems hard to believe that you accidentally made two, opposite errors on the same calculation given that those errors are the only way you could pretend to make your point.

For the record, based on the numbers above, the average $70K person/family realized a 0.06% benefit (43/70,000 * 100) while the average millionaire realized a 3.9% benefit (39,000/1,000,000 * 100), 65 times greater. It is, in fact, the wealthy who see the overall greatest benefit from the preferential treatment of capital gains income compared to earned income.

43 is 6.14% of 70,000. 39,000 is .039% of 1,000,000. savings/income = percentage of income saved.

And are YOU being intentionally dishonest? Sure the rich saved a greater DOLLAR amount, but a far less percentage of income. Is dollar amount all that matters? Why not say...income of $1 mill is subject to taxes that will net then $500,000. Afterall, thats ALOT larger dollar amount than middle class!
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
The Distribution of Ownership of US Oil and Natural Gas Companies (PDF) - by Clinton's Undersecretary of Economic and Commerce Affairs, Robert Shapiro.

It is also sometimes suggested that Congress should treat oil and natural gas industry profits differently from those of other industries, because the ownership of these companies is allegedly dominated by the holdings of company executives and other insiders. We have investigated this claim, and the data show clearly that the oil and natural gas industry is very broadly owned, with only very small portions held by company insiders.

? Across the oil and natural gas industry, 1.5 percent of the total outstanding shares of its public companies are owned by the officers and board members of those companies (?insiders?), compared to 29 percent owned by individual investors who manage their own holdings and who are not insiders, 42.7 percent owned or held by mutual funds and other asset management companies that have mutual funds, 18.1 percent owned or held by asset management companies that do not have mutual funds, and the remaining 8.7 percent owned or held and directly managed by pension funds, insurance companies, endowments and foundations, banks and other financial institutions.

? The data show that this general pattern also holds across the three main oil and natural gas sub-industries:
o Insiders own 0.7 percent of the shares of integrated oil and natural gas companies ? compared to 37.2 percent owned by individual investors who manage their own holdings, 53.2 percent owned or held by asset management firms, and 8.9 percent owned or managed by other institutions.
o Insiders own 3.2 percent of the shares of oil and natural gas operations companies ? compared to 15.4 percent owned by individual investors who manage their own holdings, 73.6 percent owned or held by asset management firms, and 7.8 percent owned or managed by other institutions.
o Insiders own 2.5 percent of the shares of oil and natural gas service companies ? compared to 15.4 percent owned by individual investors who manage their own holdings, 72.6 percent owned or held by asset management firms, and 9.5 percent owned or managed by other institutions.

? Insider ownership is smaller still in the industry?s larger firms: three-to-five companies account for more than half of each sub-industry?s total market value; and in all three sub-industries, insiders own a significantly smaller share of the large companies than of the sub-industry as a whole.

? These data, along with previous analyses that we conducted,5 further suggest that ownership of oil and natural gas company shares is broadly middle-class.
o 42.7 percent are owned or held by mutual funds and other asset management companies that have mutual funds. Mutual funds manage accounts for 55 million U.S. households with a median income of $68,7006, and the owners of mutual funds include 16 percent of households with incomes of $25,000 or less, as well as 83 percent of households with incomes of $100,000 or more
o Earlier analysis found that an estimated 27 percent of oil and natural gas company shares are held in private and public pension funds, and these funds manage assets, directly or indirectly, on behalf of 129 million pension-fund participants whose accounts have an average value of $62,280. For example, some 28 million public pension accounts in over 2,650 public employee pension funds represent the major retirement security for current and already-retired soldiers, teachers, police and fire personnel, social workers and office workers employed at every level of government. In 2004, these funds held approximately $64 billion in shares of U.S. oil and natural gas companies.
o An estimated 14 percent of oil and natural gas company shares are held in IRA-type retirement accounts with an average value of $22,465, owned by 45 million Americans

You slap a "Windfall Profit" tax on the oil industry and you are harming millions in the middle-class who have 401(k)s, IRAs, Mutual Funds, etc invested in the oil industry. Not only that, you'll see less investment, less exploration, more imports, higher energy prices, and less tax revenue.

It is really worrisome that Obama and the Dems are so gung-ho on similar high taxes and trade protectionism that brought us the Great Depression and the economic downturn of the 70s.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: sactoking

There is plenty disincentive to invest. You have to remember, the money being invested and later subject to capital gains came from SOMEWHERE. At some point in time, it was earned income and subject to income taxes. Capital gains represents DOUBLE TAXATION on previously earned income. THAT is why capital gains need to be taxed at a lower rate.

uh, no, you subtract your basis when calculating your gain. of course, some of your 'gain' represents inflation, and that would be double taxed (could be substantial depending on the rate of return vs. inflation).

the double tax comes from corporate profits, which are taxed first at the corporation and then again when either distributed to shareholders in the form of a dividend or (if not paid out) when realized by the shareholder who sells a share, the value of which has gone up because the corporation has more capital.

+1 for your explanation (sort of) on the cash basis. The suckage in this discussion is that interest on savings (and CDs, IRAs, etc) are taxed as income, not capital gains.

-1 for your double tax on corporate profits
That only applies to C-corps, not S-corps.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Engineer
Is that right? Most people in the middle class have retirement accounts and they are subject to regular income tax rates, not capital gains taxes.

CNBC just reported that the average person/family making $70,000 per year saved a whopping $43 per year in taxes with the new capital gains rates by BushCo. They went on to state that the average millionaire saved $39,000+ for EVERY million that they have in assets. Quite telling, isn't it (i.e. middle class don't own shit when it comes to enough equity to get a large capital gains cut).

How about lower my marginal rate on my income (i.e. my labor) and bring up the capital gains tax (i.e. making money on trading stocks) and meet in the middle. Buffet said it best when he stated that his $70,000 a year secretary should not be paying 28% per year on her income when he pays a net 17% on his earning per year.
So, average middle class saved 6.14%, and the rich saved a whopping .039%....the middle calss fared better.
Sorry, but I have to ask. Are you being intentionally dishonest, or do your math skill really suck that badly? You made two huge errors, both in favor of your argument, overstating the effective benefit to the middle class by a factor of 100 while simultaneously understating the effective benefit to the rich by a factor of 100. It seems hard to believe that you accidentally made two, opposite errors on the same calculation given that those errors are the only way you could pretend to make your point.

For the record, based on the numbers above, the average $70K person/family realized a 0.06% benefit (43/70,000 * 100) while the average millionaire realized a 3.9% benefit (39,000/1,000,000 * 100), 65 times greater. It is, in fact, the wealthy who see the overall greatest benefit from the preferential treatment of capital gains income compared to earned income.

43 is 6.14% of 70,000. 39,000 is .039% of 1,000,000. savings/income = percentage of income saved.
No. Wrong. That was explicitly my point. Either your reading is as bad as your math, or you're hoping if you just keep repeating the lie you'll mislead, or at least confuse, the slower members of P&N. Here, I bolded it for you so you can ignore it again.

Basic Math: 43 is .0614% of 70,000, NOT 6.14%
Basic Math: 39,000 is 3.9% of 1,000,000, NOT .039%
Basic Math: 3.9 >> 0.06

Got it?

(43/70,000) * 100 = .0614%
(39,000/1,000,000) * 100 = 3.9000%

6.14% of 70,000 = .0614 * 70,000 = 4,298
4,298 >> 43

.039% of 1,000,000 = .00039 * 1,000,000 = 390
390 << 39,000

How about now?


So, let's try it again. Based on the numbers above, the average $70K person/family realized a 0.06% benefit (43/70,000 * 100) while the average millionaire realized a 3.9% benefit (39,000/1,000,000 * 100), 65 times greater. It is, in fact, the wealthy who see the overall greatest benefit from the preferential treatment of capital gains income compared to earned income, not only in total dollars, but also as a percentage of income.

Engineer was right. You were wrong.


And are YOU being intentionally dishonest? Sure the rich saved a greater DOLLAR amount, but a far less percentage of income. Is dollar amount all that matters? Why not say...income of $1 mill is subject to taxes that will net then $500,000. Afterall, thats ALOT larger dollar amount than middle class!
As shown above, that's wrong too. Can we expect an acknowledgment and apology?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Engineer
Is that right? Most people in the middle class have retirement accounts and they are subject to regular income tax rates, not capital gains taxes.

CNBC just reported that the average person/family making $70,000 per year saved a whopping $43 per year in taxes with the new capital gains rates by BushCo. They went on to state that the average millionaire saved $39,000+ for EVERY million that they have in assets. Quite telling, isn't it (i.e. middle class don't own shit when it comes to enough equity to get a large capital gains cut).

How about lower my marginal rate on my income (i.e. my labor) and bring up the capital gains tax (i.e. making money on trading stocks) and meet in the middle. Buffet said it best when he stated that his $70,000 a year secretary should not be paying 28% per year on her income when he pays a net 17% on his earning per year.
So, average middle class saved 6.14%, and the rich saved a whopping .039%....the middle calss fared better.
Sorry, but I have to ask. Are you being intentionally dishonest, or do your math skill really suck that badly? You made two huge errors, both in favor of your argument, overstating the effective benefit to the middle class by a factor of 100 while simultaneously understating the effective benefit to the rich by a factor of 100. It seems hard to believe that you accidentally made two, opposite errors on the same calculation given that those errors are the only way you could pretend to make your point.

For the record, based on the numbers above, the average $70K person/family realized a 0.06% benefit (43/70,000 * 100) while the average millionaire realized a 3.9% benefit (39,000/1,000,000 * 100), 65 times greater. It is, in fact, the wealthy who see the overall greatest benefit from the preferential treatment of capital gains income compared to earned income.

43 is 6.14% of 70,000. 39,000 is .039% of 1,000,000. savings/income = percentage of income saved.
No. Wrong. That was explicitly my point. Either your reading is as bad as your math, or you're hoping if you just keep repeating the lie you'll mislead, or at least confuse, the slower members of P&N. Here, I bolded it for you so you can ignore it again.

Basic Math: 43 is .0614% of 70,000, NOT 6.14%
Basic Math: 39,000 is 3.9% of 1,000,000, NOT .039%
Basic Math: 3.9 >> 0.06

Got it?

(43/70,000) * 100 = .0614%
(39,000/1,000,000) * 100 = 3.9000%

6.14% of 70,000 = .0614 * 70,000 = 4,298
4,298 >> 43

.039% of 1,000,000 = .00039 * 1,000,000 = 390
390 << 39,000

How about now?


So, let's try it again. Based on the numbers above, the average $70K person/family realized a 0.06% benefit (43/70,000 * 100) while the average millionaire realized a 3.9% benefit (39,000/1,000,000 * 100), 65 times greater. It is, in fact, the wealthy who see the overall greatest benefit from the preferential treatment of capital gains income compared to earned income, not only in total dollars, but also as a percentage of income.

Engineer was right. You were wrong.


And are YOU being intentionally dishonest? Sure the rich saved a greater DOLLAR amount, but a far less percentage of income. Is dollar amount all that matters? Why not say...income of $1 mill is subject to taxes that will net then $500,000. Afterall, thats ALOT larger dollar amount than middle class!
As shown above, that's wrong too. Can we expect an acknowledgment and apology?

Bah. Didnt carry a decimal. Sorry :) That said...

why should the group that contributes the least to the federal revenue realize a greater percentage gain than the group who contributes the most? Where's the good math in that?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
Originally posted by: blackangst1


43 is 6.14% of 70,000. 39,000 is .039% of 1,000,000. savings/income = percentage of income saved.
Wow, you're REALLY bad at math...
Why not say...income of $1 mill is subject to taxes that will net then $500,000. Afterall, thats ALOT larger dollar amount than middle class!

and english too I guess..


edit: for the record, is english your first language? If not then I apologize for criticizing.

Already acknowledged my failure at carrying decimal places :p
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ


and btw, capital gains tax now will hit a huge chunk of the middle class.

Is that right? Most people in the middle class have retirement accounts and they are subject to regular income tax rates, not capital gains taxes.

CNBC just reported that the average person/family making $70,000 per year saved a whopping $43 per year in taxes with the new capital gains rates by BushCo. They went on to state that the average millionaire saved $39,000+ for EVERY million that they have in assets. Quite telling, isn't it (i.e. middle class don't own shit when it comes to enough equity to get a large capital gains cut).

How about lower my marginal rate on my income (i.e. my labor) and bring up the capital gains tax (i.e. making money on trading stocks) and meet in the middle. Buffet said it best when he stated that his $70,000 a year secretary should not be paying 28% per year on her income when he pays a net 17% on his earning per year.

So, average middle class saved 6.14%, and the rich saved a whopping .039%....the middle calss fared better.

And just how do you figure?

How does savings $43 on taxes = 6.14% and $39,000 for each million of assets (not income) saved = .039%?

You suck at the math.

It's strange how you converted the 43/70,000 = .00064 to 6.4% yet you left the 39,000/100,000 = .039 at .039% instead of stating the correct numbers of 3.9% of ASSETS for millionaires vs 0.064% of INCOME for the $70,000 and below earner.

It would be interesting if CNBC had convered the millionaire savings to % saved on TAXES and not in terms of assets.

Regardless, using your "mathematics" and doing it right:

$43/$70,000 x 100 = 0.064%
$39,000/$1,000,000 x 100 = 3.9%.

Middle class sucked on that one. Nice playing with the decimal point, by the way.


EDIT: Sorry, several have now corrected you on your dis....er....horribly bad math. :laugh:
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: Bowfinger

So, let's try it again. Based on the numbers above, the average $70K person/family realized a 0.06% benefit (43/70,000 * 100) while the average millionaire realized a 3.9% benefit (39,000/1,000,000 * 100), 65 times greater. It is, in fact, the wealthy who see the overall greatest benefit from the preferential treatment of capital gains income compared to earned income, not only in total dollars, but also as a percentage of income.


Just to clarify, the program on CNBC stated that the average millionaire received $39,000 additional tax cuts for EVERY million owned. I know that the numbers may be skewed by billionaires and mega traders like Buffet, but regardless, the middle class received nothing but spit on the capital gains cuts while the millionaires and billionaires received the gold trophy.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Bowfinger

So, let's try it again. Based on the numbers above, the average $70K person/family realized a 0.06% benefit (43/70,000 * 100) while the average millionaire realized a 3.9% benefit (39,000/1,000,000 * 100), 65 times greater. It is, in fact, the wealthy who see the overall greatest benefit from the preferential treatment of capital gains income compared to earned income, not only in total dollars, but also as a percentage of income.


Just to clarify, the program on CNBC stated that the average millionaire received $39,000 additional tax cuts for EVERY million owned. I know that the numbers may be skewed by billionaires and mega traders like Buffet, but regardless, the middle class received nothing but spit on the capital gains cuts while the millionaires and billionaires received the gold trophy.

OK, but....why should the group that contributes the least to the federal revenue realize a greater percentage gain than the group who contributes the most? Where's the good math in that?

and it isnt popular to lower taxes on the middle class either as response from the tax rebates...
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Bowfinger

So, let's try it again. Based on the numbers above, the average $70K person/family realized a 0.06% benefit (43/70,000 * 100) while the average millionaire realized a 3.9% benefit (39,000/1,000,000 * 100), 65 times greater. It is, in fact, the wealthy who see the overall greatest benefit from the preferential treatment of capital gains income compared to earned income, not only in total dollars, but also as a percentage of income.


Just to clarify, the program on CNBC stated that the average millionaire received $39,000 additional tax cuts for EVERY million owned. I know that the numbers may be skewed by billionaires and mega traders like Buffet, but regardless, the middle class received nothing but spit on the capital gains cuts while the millionaires and billionaires received the gold trophy.

OK, but....why should the group that contributes the least to the federal revenue realize a greater percentage gain than the group who contributes the most? Where's the good math in that?

and it isnt popular to lower taxes on the middle class either as response from the tax rebates...
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Bowfinger

So, let's try it again. Based on the numbers above, the average $70K person/family realized a 0.06% benefit (43/70,000 * 100) while the average millionaire realized a 3.9% benefit (39,000/1,000,000 * 100), 65 times greater. It is, in fact, the wealthy who see the overall greatest benefit from the preferential treatment of capital gains income compared to earned income, not only in total dollars, but also as a percentage of income.


Just to clarify, the program on CNBC stated that the average millionaire received $39,000 additional tax cuts for EVERY million owned. I know that the numbers may be skewed by billionaires and mega traders like Buffet, but regardless, the middle class received nothing but spit on the capital gains cuts while the millionaires and billionaires received the gold trophy.

OK, but....why should the group that contributes the least to the federal revenue realize a greater percentage gain than the group who contributes the most? Where's the good math in that?

and it isnt popular to lower taxes on the middle class either as response from the tax rebates...

And why does a group that makes most of it's money from capital gains pay a lower percentage of tax on that money than someone like me on my earnings (from labor)?

And the middle class doesn't pay the "least". We may not pay the most, but certainly not the least. Also, the top 1-2% of people pay a far lower % than most everyone else.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Bowfinger

So, let's try it again. Based on the numbers above, the average $70K person/family realized a 0.06% benefit (43/70,000 * 100) while the average millionaire realized a 3.9% benefit (39,000/1,000,000 * 100), 65 times greater. It is, in fact, the wealthy who see the overall greatest benefit from the preferential treatment of capital gains income compared to earned income, not only in total dollars, but also as a percentage of income.


Just to clarify, the program on CNBC stated that the average millionaire received $39,000 additional tax cuts for EVERY million owned. I know that the numbers may be skewed by billionaires and mega traders like Buffet, but regardless, the middle class received nothing but spit on the capital gains cuts while the millionaires and billionaires received the gold trophy.

OK, but....why should the group that contributes the least to the federal revenue realize a greater percentage gain than the group who contributes the most? Where's the good math in that?

and it isnt popular to lower taxes on the middle class either as response from the tax rebates...

And why does a group that makes most of it's money from capital gains pay a lower percentage of tax on that money than someone like me on my earnings (from labor)?

And the middle class doesn't pay the "least". We may not pay the most, but certainly not the least. Also, the top 1-2% of people pay a far lower % than most everyone else.

When I say least, Im talking about volume of revenue. MIA doesnt contrbute a significant amount. I get upset about local taxes, not federal. When I made $51k a few years ago, without owning a home (but had a few other write offs), my effective tax rate was 11%. Big fucking deal? I'd like to hear effective tax rates for the wealthy. Unfortunately those I know who are well of are only worth 8 figures (1 person) and 7 figures(3 people) otherwise I would ask. I know for a fact they pay 30-35% effective.

The only fair way to tax is a straight percentage. But this country is too full of wealth-envy people so it will never happen.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Bowfinger

So, let's try it again. Based on the numbers above, the average $70K person/family realized a 0.06% benefit (43/70,000 * 100) while the average millionaire realized a 3.9% benefit (39,000/1,000,000 * 100), 65 times greater. It is, in fact, the wealthy who see the overall greatest benefit from the preferential treatment of capital gains income compared to earned income, not only in total dollars, but also as a percentage of income.


Just to clarify, the program on CNBC stated that the average millionaire received $39,000 additional tax cuts for EVERY million owned. I know that the numbers may be skewed by billionaires and mega traders like Buffet, but regardless, the middle class received nothing but spit on the capital gains cuts while the millionaires and billionaires received the gold trophy.

OK, but....why should the group that contributes the least to the federal revenue realize a greater percentage gain than the group who contributes the most? Where's the good math in that?

and it isnt popular to lower taxes on the middle class either as response from the tax rebates...

And why does a group that makes most of it's money from capital gains pay a lower percentage of tax on that money than someone like me on my earnings (from labor)?

And the middle class doesn't pay the "least". We may not pay the most, but certainly not the least. Also, the top 1-2% of people pay a far lower % than most everyone else.

When I say least, Im talking about volume of revenue. MIA doesnt contrbute a significant amount. I get upset about local taxes, not federal. When I made $51k a few years ago, without owning a home (but had a few other write offs), my effective tax rate was 11%. Big fucking deal? I'd like to hear effective tax rates for the wealthy. Unfortunately those I know who are well of are only worth 8 figures (1 person) and 7 figures(3 people) otherwise I would ask. I know for a fact they pay 30-35% effective.

The only fair way to tax is a straight percentage. But this country is too full of wealth-envy people so it will never happen.

Is there any point at which wealth concentration would make you actually consider the effect of policies, andnot blind ideology, for your opinion?

If there was one guy who owned 99% of all the wealth in the nation, and millions dying in the streets of medical problems, would you ignore the situation and keep parroting this?

Or can you at some point recognize the situation a little besides your blind ideology, and recognize how distribution of wealth creates opportunity and prosperity, and that there needs to be a balance - not too little concentration so that incentives are not there for productivity, yet not too much so that the wealthy are wealthy for how much power they have to control the system and not because of 'incentive ofr productivity'?

I don't think you can, sadly. Zero of your posts shows me anything but blind ideology on these issues. You will say things on one side of the issue, but not the other.

There's more to the issue of wealth in the nation than the tax rate; if wealth is flowing fast to the very top who are owning 25%, 50%, 75% of all of it, you can see an issue growing.

Your homework assignment, if you have any interest in something beyond blind ideology, is to look into the trends since 1980 of how much the top 0.1% own of America's wealth.
 

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,732
2
81
Originally posted by: Carbo
Penalize Big Oil

Obama says he would impose oil windfall profits tax


From what I understand a "windfall profits' are profits that you made that where you made no investment in. So how is he going to tax oil companies on the huge profits derived from what those companies invested in?

Answer; he can't!

This statement appears to be nothing more than a meaningless but makes me look real good con mans tactic.