Righties: what are three things Repubs have done for the middle class in 30 years

[Zebo]

I happen to agree with the others here. The difference is that the investor class, those who make the bulk of their income through investments, pay a lower overall rate and that investments should be taxed at the same rate as normal income.

However they also seem to miss the point that investments are often held for a long time before seeing any return at all, so to tax them as though all of the income was in one year isn't fair either.

If someone made $1,000,000 on stock they bought last week and sold this week, that should definitely be taxed at the highest bracket. If another person made $1,000,000 on stock they held for 25 years, why should we assume that all of the increased value fell into one year and tax them the same way? The appreciation should be spread across the term of investment and they should pay for 25 years worth of taxes on $40,000 per year. I feel it's an important distinction. The second scenario is far more likely to affect those who work for a living rather than pure investors anyway. It would make calculating taxes a bit more complicated, but it's not like they're not complicated already.

Not just investors Bober, but real salary too - some of y'all need to look up the 15% hedge fund manager compensation loophole where guys make literally hundreds of millions or billions per year and pay less taxes than a plumber. Or alternatively most corp officers paying themselves a token salary then extracting their real money through options taxed at 15%.

I am middle/upper middle class and everyone I know, everyone in neighborhood, pays more than 15% while these gentlemen pay 15% on salary cloaked as an investment- How is that just?

edit - Couple links on 15% + no employment taxes hedge fund loophole

http://www.hedgefundlawblog.com/hedge-fund-carried-interest-tax-increase.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/26/will-the-taxman-cometh_n_170082.html

 

[Zebo]

If you're going to get nasty you little fucking piece of shit, let's get nasty.

First of all bitch, I never agreed to let anyone take a piece of anything. That's forced on me at the end of a gun barrel. Try not paying income taxes and see who shows up at your door.

Second you turd burgling little fuck, what makes you think that interest and appreciation is not income? Was it not money you did not have before? How the hell, in your tiny little pea brain, do you figure that an increase in value of an investment is double taxation?

heh pwnt

These fuckers don't understand it would be possible to go though life not paying a dime in taxes if born an heiress or owning own business under such a no cap gains tax scheme.

 

[palehorse]

You still have it backwards- 28% on STCG's, 15% on LTCG's as a maximum on each. The top 400 taxpayer who paid 17% taxes on an average income of $263M *obviously* didn't pay 28%.

I know the differences and just mistyped... and have now fixed it.

All of your whimpering on behalf of the little guy assumes that the little guy will actually be significantly impacted by changes to capital gains rates.

So when I stick up for lower and middle class, it's "whimpering;" but, when you and the rest of the far-left mafia do it, it's "principle"? Yeah... fuck you too.

Going from 0 to 15% overnight seems rather "significant" to me, yes.

I offered links showing that such would be negligible, you pretend I didn't, simply assert the same claim over and over again.

Tell that to those 15-percenters who will be affected... I'm sure they'd disagree.

Here's another link- 87% of taxpayers had no capital gains in 2006, a great year for the market, and only 4% of all capital gains go to those making under $50K-

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/would_raising_the_capital_gains_tax_rate.html

15% of nothing is still nothing for the vast majority of taxpayers.

Actually, that would be "15% of longterm investments held by that 4%"... but, again, you don't give a fuck since it doesnt affect you.

If you want to make assertions to the contrary, find a third part source to quantify that assertion- otherwise, you're just complaining about something that you imagine might happen, kinda like how the Iraqis "could" have given their imaginary WMD's to terrorists...

Tax whiners are so tedious, particularly when they just parrot talking points taken from the usual rightwing sources, financed by the usual rightwing big money... Their concern for the little guy is a contrivance, a ploy designed only to help themselves maintain a most favorable tax status on their own capital gains. It's the same song and dance as their campaign wrt estate taxes, different verse.

If you paid attention to the conversation, you'd realize that I have no problem whatsoever with raising CG taxes on the higher income tax brackets. My problem is with the pending rise in LTCG taxes on those who are in the lower and middle class who do, in fact, maintain some longterm investments.

You honestly have no problem with their loss, even if it on affects 4% of them? Really?!

 

[TehMac]

1. Cutting taxes for the wealthiest 1% allowed them to build more cubicle farms to place the peasants.

2. Going into 2 wars insured job prospects for the middle classes children.

3. A horrible energy policy, health care policy and environmental policy has insured that the middle class realizes how lucky they are just to have a job and better shut their mouths and buy more plastic from china.

The sock puppet hast spoken.

 

[Jhhnn]

Actually, palehorse, it does affect me, just not in some huge sort of way, which is the same for most middle class investors. If I sold a rental property, for example, cashed in the equity, I'd pay LTCG taxes on that, willingly. Hell, small investors often pay a higher rate on the income generated than from the realization of gains at sale. Nor do I object to paying 15% on income from dividends or stock sales.

I hope you realize that a huge part of the 4% of the total CG income received by folks earning less than $50K is from the sale of their primary residence, which isn't taxable up to a rather generous amount, anyway. If that were excluded, I suspect that the sub $50K share of CG's would be very small indeed.

Unlike 87% of Americans, I have investments subject to CG taxes. I'm lucky to have done as well as I have, to live in this country at this point in time. I don't see paying 15% on passively earned income as onerous. I'll pay willingly to help support our country.

OTOH, I suspect that Congress will probably find a way to tax the minute dribble of CG income received by lower income folks at a lower rate, simply because there's really very little there to tax, very little to be gained in terms of financing the govt other than bad press...

I do realize that low CG taxes encourage investment, risk taking, but I think we need to realize just where excessive risk taking has taken us... the brink of financial disaster, and perhaps beyond.

 

[palehorse]

Actually, palehorse, it does affect me, just not in some huge sort of way, which is the same for most middle class investors. If I sold a rental property, for example, cashed in the equity, I'd pay LTCG taxes on that, willingly. Hell, small investors often pay a higher rate on the income generated than from the realization of gains at sale. Nor do I object to paying 15% on income from dividends or stock sales.

I hope you realize that a huge part of the 4% of the total CG income received by folks earning less than $50K is from the sale of their primary residence, which isn't taxable up to a rather generous amount, anyway. If that were excluded, I suspect that the sub $50K share of CG's would be very small indeed.

Unlike 87% of Americans, I have investments subject to CG taxes. I'm lucky to have done as well as I have, to live in this country at this point in time. I don't see paying 15% on passively earned income as onerous. I'll pay willingly to help support our country.

OTOH, I suspect that Congress will probably find a way to tax the minute dribble of CG income received by lower income folks at a lower rate, simply because there's really very little there to tax, very little to be gained in terms of financing the govt other than bad press...

I do realize that low CG taxes encourage investment, risk taking, but I think we need to realize just where excessive risk taking has taken us... the brink of financial disaster, and perhaps beyond.

so, we should just let the 15% income tax bracket suffer an overnight 0 to 15% increase to their LTCG's... got it.

Is it just too politically inconvenient for the "party for the poor" to bother fixing?

 

[Jhhnn]

You've created an amusing strawman, palehorse, then attacked it.

There's no telling what congress will do wrt taxes in general for 2010 and subsequent years, despite your fantasizing, wailing, finger pointing, and fearmongering.

It seems likely that senatorial repubs will block any real reforms, forcing a return to rates as they existed prior to the Bush cuts, rates currently prescribed by law. But that'll be the Dems' fault if it happens, right?

You still haven't offered any sort of real numbers wrt the actual number of taxpayer affected or the dollar amounts involved... one thing we know pretty much for sure is that any change in CG rates will have *zero* effect on ~87% of taxpayers...

You haven't made a case that there's really anything to fix, other than your theoretical construct...

 

[palehorse]

You've created an amusing strawman, palehorse, then attacked it.

I created nothing. I stated fact. It's you and your boyfriend Craig who can't seem to let your hearts bleed enough to care for them, or even admit that blanket expiration of the Bush tax cuts WILL hurt the lower and middle classes as well.

There's no telling what congress will do wrt taxes in general for 2010 and subsequent years, despite your fantasizing, wailing, finger pointing, and fearmongering.

I've done none of those things.

Low to middle class earners WILL see their LTCG taxes increase dramatically, period. That's what we DO know.

It seems likely that senatorial repubs will block any real reforms, forcing a return to rates as they existed prior to the Bush cuts, rates currently prescribed by law. But that'll be the Dems' fault if it happens, right?

If the Dems -- the party in complete power -- let the tax cuts expire in their entirety, then yes, it will be their fault when it negatively affects the lower and middle classes as well. That's how it works.

You still haven't offered any sort of real numbers wrt the actual number of taxpayer affected or the dollar amounts involved... one thing we know pretty much for sure is that any change in CG rates will have *zero* effect on ~87% of taxpayers...

Please specify at what threshold you begin to care about raising taxes on low and middle class earners.

You haven't made a case that there's really anything to fix, other than your theoretical construct...

There is nothing "theoretical" about the dramatically increased LTCG taxes that 15-percenters will soon have to pay once Obama lets the Bush tax cuts expire in their entirety.

I'm honestly surprised that you would even argue the need to remedy this specific situation. Again, how many affected persons are required for you to begin to care?

Or, rather, does your heart only bleed when it's politically convenient?

 

[werepossum]

The sock puppet hast spoken.

I wasn't to going to post in Craig's thread, but being stuck at work for an interminable folder move I peeked. And I'm still laughing at your post. Thanks!

 

[Craig234]

I created nothing. I stated fact. It's you and your boyfriend Craig who can't seem to let your hearts bleed enough to care for them, or even admit that blanket expiration of the Bush tax cuts WILL hurt the lower and middle classes as well.

What the hell? I think very well of Jhhnn's posts - you have some mental disorder that you need to add gratuitous crap for two people you may not be agreeing with with an anti-gay "boyfriend" attack?

Holding up the 98% rate of people who disagree misrepresenting my position when they try to put words in my mouth, you get it wrong.

I haven't even responded to your position that I recall. Yes, in some way, possible relatively very small, the end of the Bush tax cuts could increase taxes on the less well off.

I don't recall if I asked you to post the breakdown of capital gain income by wealth - I'd meant to if I didn't. It would add a lot to the issue beyond your fixation.

Now, I'm not necessarily hostile to your position. I'm in agreement with the support for higher taxes for the top, and for the concern about impact on those below.

Because the last 30 years have been such a shift upwards in wealth, I'm very happy to take care of those not rich and help restore some balance, including protecting them from the repeal of the Bush tax cuts.

Now, there's a lot more to the issue. Should we merely define a line below which the tax cuts remain in place? Should we use a progressive tax rate to do this? Should we give them credits elsewhere to offset?

I don't much care - I'm mostly in agreement with what you seem to be saying for all your attacking tone.

I see more bickering than disagreeing going on.

For example, when Jhhnn pointed out the LTCG rate increase vastly affected the rich the most, you said he doesn't care because he isn't affected; he corrected you he is affected but willing to pay it.

I haven't seen you acnowledge his point - to make up numbers, if 98% of the LTCG increase affects the rich and 2% the middle, that's worth noting. I'm with you - let's protect that 2% - but if the only choice were to repaeal it all or none at all, a case could be made easily to repeal it all. There's some concern that your position can be used to say 'repeal none of it. including the 98% for the rich, in the name of protecting the middle class' - a disengenuous argument.

I'm not saying you are doing that, I'm saying it'd happen. As I said I dn't really disagree with you, if you can stop the gratuitous animosity - I'm cautiously please looking at your position.

If not your abrasiveness in discussing some aspects of the issue. Good for you in sticking up for the middle class.

I've done none of those things.

Low to middle class earners WILL see their LTCG taxes increase dramatically, period. That's what we DO know.

If the Dems -- the party in complete power -- let the tax cuts expire in their entirety, then yes, it will be their fault when it negatively affects the lower and middle classes as well. That's how it works.

Here's another way it can work. The tax cuts are expiring. There's a question whether to renew them.

Progressives support what you say - let them expire for the rich, but protect the middle class.

Then, politicians who serve the rich - nearly all Republicans, many corporatist Dems - make a big deal out of 'fairness', the 'socialism' of 'unequal treatment' to protect the middle class, using it as cover to demand the borrowed tax cuts be extended for everyone, and they vote 'no' to the progressive's plan. Then, the only choice is, 'repeal them for everyone' or 'extend them for everyone'.

That's when Jhhnn's point becomes very relevant - if the borrowed tax cuts are giving 98% ofd their benefit to the rich, is it worth the middle class paying more losing their 2% to get the rich paying more with 98%?

It can be easily argued it is - in the interest of the middle class in the larger picture, even though we'd rather not only protect the middle but help them even more than just protecting this cut.

The revenue helps reduce the deficit reducing the public burden, and helps reduce the massive shift of wealth to the top.

Please specify at what threshold you begin to care about raising taxes on low and middle class earners.

There is nothing "theoretical" about the dramatically increased LTCG taxes that 15-percenters will soon have to pay once Obama lets the Bush tax cuts expire in their entirety.

I'm honestly surprised that you would even argue the need to remedy this specific situation. Again, how many affected persons are required for you to begin to care?

Or, rather, does your heart only bleed when it's politically convenient?

 

[palehorse]

I'm not saying you are doing that, I'm saying it'd happen. As I said I don't really disagree with you, if you can stop the gratuitous animosity - I'm cautiously pleased looking at your position.

If not your abrasiveness in discussing some aspects of the issue. Good for you in sticking up for the middle class.

First, let me apologize for the ad hominems... it really seemed as though you were at first denying the impact it would have, and then later that you and Jhnnn didn't appear to care about the 4% of middle and lower class folks who will be affected by the changes when the cuts expire. As long as those two assumptions are false, then please accept my apology. (The boyfriend comment was out of line).

I would, however, like to see something to demonstrate that your progressive friends have made this very same point; and that they do, in fact, wish to find a way to keep a portion of the cuts in place. Do you have any links that show them doing so?

Again, sorry... sometimes I get carried away -- especially when I disagree with something on principle, which in this case is any unnecessary burden increase on the lower and middle classes (even if it's just 4%).

 

[Craig234]

First, let me apologize for the ad hominems... it really seemed as though you were at first denying the impact it would have, and then later that you and Jhnnn didn't appear to care about the 4% of middle and lower class folks who will be affected by the changes when the cuts expire. As long as those two assumptions are false, then please accept my apology. (The boyfriend comment was out of line).

Thank you, it's accepted.

I do care about them, but we should clarify.

Generally progressives are used to the idea that sometimes there are prices for good policy. If we want to build green energy, or start a really good war toget rid of WMD, there are costs, not just debt for later.

Progressives are not averse to a policy that costs them money - many wealthy progressives advocate higher taxes on the rich that will cost them persoally, for a larger good.

It's not just a party saying "let's all wear progressives sticker and make a big tax on everyone without the sitcker".

So, when we see Bush pass trillions in tax cuts weighted for the rich, with crumbs given to the of Americans just so he can sell it better and say "see you all get money". progressives aren't averse to the politically simple idea of "let's just roll them all back - the big ones for the rich and the small ones for others". Witrh the huge debt we have, what's so wrong with that, even the smaller increases for the not rich. It's simple, and to exempt only those small non-rich cuts looks selfish and can easily be attacked and hurt the chances of any rollbacks.

Progressives are still committed to a healthy middle class, reducing the imbalances other ways, and helping the poor gety the chance to reach it.

Having said all that, I think your heart is in the right place and I have no problem as I said protecting the non-rich in the rollbacks either, as long as it doesn't jeopardize the rest of the rollbacks.

I share your concern for the middle class.

I would, however, like to see something to demonstrate that your progressive friends have made this very same point; and that they do, in fact, wish to find a way to keep a portion of the cuts in place. Do you have any links that show them doing so?

Again, sorry... sometimes I get carried away -- especially when I disagree with something on principle, which in this case is any unnecessary burden increase on the lower and middle classes (even if it's just 4%).

Don't confuse the natural inclination to 'keep it simple' with the middle class not being important.

There have been all kinds of policies attacking the middle class for decades, and I'm for protecting them.

It might be with your plan on these rollbacks as one measure, or another method.

That help?

 

[palehorse]

Thank you, it's accepted.

I do care about them, but we should clarify.

Generally progressives are used to the idea that sometimes there are prices for good policy. If we want to build green energy, or start a really good war toget rid of WMD, there are costs, not just debt for later.

Progressives are not averse to a policy that costs them money - many wealthy progressives advocate higher taxes on the rich that will cost them persoally, for a larger good.

It's not just a party saying "let's all wear progressives sticker and make a big tax on everyone without the sitcker".

So, when we see Bush pass trillions in tax cuts weighted for the rich, with crumbs given to the of Americans just so he can sell it better and say "see you all get money". progressives aren't averse to the politically simple idea of "let's just roll them all back - the big ones for the rich and the small ones for others". Witrh the huge debt we have, what's so wrong with that, even the smaller increases for the not rich. It's simple, and to exempt only those small non-rich cuts looks selfish and can easily be attacked and hurt the chances of any rollbacks.

Progressives are still committed to a healthy middle class, reducing the imbalances other ways, and helping the poor gety the chance to reach it.

Having said all that, I think your heart is in the right place and I have no problem as I said protecting the non-rich in the rollbacks either, as long as it doesn't jeopardize the rest of the rollbacks.

I share your concern for the middle class.



Don't confuse the natural inclination to 'keep it simple' with the middle class not being important.

There have been all kinds of policies attacking the middle class for decades, and I'm for protecting them.

It might be with your plan on these rollbacks as one measure, or another method.

That help?

Fair enough... but, is there anything out there that I can read/watch that shows one of your Progressive friends addressing this specific issue? I've not seen anyone in the Democratic party echo this concern or express interest in partial rollbacks to keep the lower/middle cuts in place... anything at all?

 

[teddyv]

So, when we see Bush pass trillions in tax cuts weighted for the rich

They actually increased taxes for the rich, and lowered them for the middle class. Unlike Obama's health care tax (unless you are in a politically connected Union.)

 

[Craig234]

They actually increased taxes for the rich, and lowered them for the middle class. Unlike Obama's health care tax (unless you are in a politically connected Union.)

False. Having your tax DOLLARS go up because yu increased your income far more isn't a tax increase of your rate going up.

 

[Craig234]

Fair enough... but, is there anything out there that I can read/watch that shows one of your Progressive friends addressing this specific issue? I've not seen anyone in the Democratic party echo this concern or express interest in partial rollbacks to keep the lower/middle cuts in place... anything at all?

I don't hear much about the borrowed tax cuts expiring from either side at all, which is surprising. Maybe Republicans know they can't do anything about it and it makes them look bad, and Democrats know it could make them look bad as well like tax increasers. Who knows. I just want to make sure the Estate Tax is in place especially.

 

[gingermeggs]

Hopefully, there's a good answer to this question I don't know. But instead of my saying I don't know of them, why don't ask for them?

I'm not looking for controversial claims (why, crippling unions is good for the middle class, really!). I'm not looking for things with a token (few hundred) middle class benefit to really help the rich (Bush tax cuts).

I'm looking for any policy aimed at the middle (heck, lower too) class with any significant benefits for them, and no 'but', not things that got bundled into a bill with another agenda, to appease liberals.

I'm not looking for 'they voted no on a Democratic program we don't like', either, or airy claims that their general attitude just somehow magically good for the middle class - a marketing message.

Republicans have controlled the presidency all but 9 years since 1981, and for many years Congress.

Just grab three big things you can hang your hat on that they're not the enemy of the middle class.

I'll even take programs they made a real effort on and didn't get passed.

We just ended the decade of consevative failure, removing trillions from the middle class, worst middle class raises, stocks, houses, jobs. I broadened the time frame to include the modern conservatives since Reagan.

Hopefully, there's a good answer.

so tell me craigy are you willing to take financial hit in your public servant position salary, will you up "production" in your role for nought?(an enviable untouchable position, loaded to the hilt with gay suedo lefties), will you go from designer pink panties to china white grub baggies? and cycle to work?"
\wtf are you gunna change? with ure mouth?
wtf is hope for, but to make you lot justified as peelers of the coin!
Let's here about how you make ends meets, instead of copping meat in ure end sunshine.
All these mouthy cvnts are starting to fuck me right off, how are you feeling, brothers who sweat the dirt for a living, black white,yellow or brown?
Time for a real fucken change, give hope the arse!
you' got more worthy people on fucken welfare for fucks sake!
yeah I'm unconscious!
like fuck! stop pissing down my back lib hack'
I don't want your kind in my world.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

so tell me craigy are you willing to take financial hit in your public servant position salary, will you up "production" in your role for nought?(an enviable untouchable position, loaded to the hilt with gay suedo lefties), will you go from designer pink panties to china white grub baggies? and cycle to work?"
\wtf are you gunna change? with ure mouth?
wtf is hope for, but to make you lot justified as peelers of the coin!
Let's here about how you make ends meets, instead of copping meat in ure end sunshine.
All these mouthy cvnts are starting to fuck me right off, how are you feeling, brothers who sweat the dirt for a living, black white,yellow or brown?
Time for a real fucken change, give hope the arse!
you' got more worthy people on fucken welfare for fucks sake!
yeah I'm unconscious!
like fuck! stop pissing down my back lib hack'
I don't want your kind in my world.

So I see you edited you post. Was that to make it even more unintelligible?

 

[dmcowen674]

Well they have now contributed two good things:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well they have now contributed two good things:

Now that's a good lei!

 

[Craig234]

so tell me craigy are you willing to take financial hit in your public servant position salary, will you up "production" in your role for nought?(an enviable untouchable position, loaded to the hilt with gay suedo lefties), will you go from designer pink panties to china white grub baggies? and cycle to work?"
\wtf are you gunna change? with ure mouth?
wtf is hope for, but to make you lot justified as peelers of the coin!
Let's here about how you make ends meets, instead of copping meat in ure end sunshine.
All these mouthy cvnts are starting to fuck me right off, how are you feeling, brothers who sweat the dirt for a living, black white,yellow or brown?
Time for a real fucken change, give hope the arse!
you' got more worthy people on fucken welfare for fucks sake!
yeah I'm unconscious!
like fuck! stop pissing down my back lib hack'
I don't want your kind in my world.

Like FDR said, I am proud of my enemies. Righties, see who is next to you in the foxhole.

PS Only cute young women who are doing naughty things call me Craigy. You are not allowed. Unless...