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

[JSt0rm]

You could have just agreed that you place social issues ahead of keeping the national debt under control, instead you spout some rubbish in an attempt to what distract and get the last word in?

Go ahead and respond, you can have the last word, you've already proved my point.

I never said that, we call that a strawman. You putting words in my mouth like "you could have just agreed that you..." doesn't work ()

I wont vote for the republicans for many issues. Healthcare policy, drug reform and gay marriage are but a few of the reasons. I'm saying as long as a party is bigoted against a group of people they wont get my vote EVEN if they are fiscally conservative but considering the republicans aren't fiscally conservative it really doesn't matter.

 

[Jhhnn]

so, your problem is actually with capital gains taxes then, right? Separate issue... but let's discuss.

When people -- anyone -- invest, what does their invested money do for the entities they invest in, and for the rest of the economy as a whole?

The answer to that question is the basis for the entire concept of capital gains taxing, and the explanation for the lower rates on ALL capital gains, regardless of the level of wealth for any particular investor.

Ultimately, are you suggesting that capital gains taxes be made more progressive?

Missed your edit.

I'll offer that having lower rates for capital gains income among the financial elite serves nobody other than the elite, simply because they'll invest excess income anyway. Spending enormous incomes is basically impossible. Once sufficient self sustaining wealth has been invested in safe, low yield endeavors, the remainder becomes a toy, a rather dangerous one for the rest of us. It creates market bubbles and political influence at the domestic and international level not necessarily in proportion to the societal value of the ideas being promulgated.

A small % of the tax savings provided to the financial elite by the current system will provide the recipient with enormous influence in govt and in the general zeitgeist of any target population, particularly a population where "free speech" is bought and sold by the square mile.

That's us, and the changes made to the tax and business codes in this country over the last 30 years reflect such influence. Statistically, those changes serve the whole of America very poorly, if at all, but they have and will continue to serve those at the top to the detriment of the rest of us. That's the true legacy of Republican governance and the worship of greed among the general population fostered by it.

 

[nobodyknows]

The truth hurts, doesn't it.

 

[nobodyknows]

Check a real study, comparing tax shares, including changes in income.

The tightie righties are loathe to admit it, but your right Craig. No charts on taxes means anything without taking into accout what happened with peoples income levels.

 

[shiner]

The truth hurts, doesn't it.

You dolt, that's a picture of McCraigwen234 doing his typical "La la la" routine when someone posts facts that don't agree with his worldview.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

The answer is obvious.

They've done everything they can to get rid of the middle class.

And you helped them by voting for Bush. Why do you hate the middle class, Dave?

 

[nobodyknows]

You dolt, that's a picture of McCraigwen234 doing his typical "La la la" routine when someone posts facts that don't agree with his worldview.

I know a "shiner" when I see one.

 

[nobodyknows]

And you helped them by voting for Bush. Why do you hate the middle class, Dave?

So you're claiming you didn't vote for Bush? Or you'r just making fun of somebody for changing their mind and admitting a mistake? Either way you come across as the trust fund baby you are.

 

[blackangst1]

Those are big and dishonest attacks from you. Not one word in your lengthy cut and paste contradicts one word in my post, leaving your attack for the lie it is.

At least you posted the link for a change, so we can see the site, an anonymous one guy site witha Fox news link, cherrypicking any tidbit he can showing good race actions in Republican history out of context.

You need to brush up on your reading comprehensin and your history. Cherry picked Republican bits are not a history. But don't repeat if you can't stope the lies. You continue to waste my time as well.

Doesnt matter where the link is from, everything stated is historical fact. It would be just as true if it was posted on commondreams.

Now youre throwing strawmen in, which isnt really your style. But of course your only other choice is to admit youre wrong, which will never happen.

Carry on with your dream world.

 

[blackangst1]

Missed your edit.

I'll offer that having lower rates for capital gains income among the financial elite serves nobody other than the elite, simply because they'll invest excess income anyway. Spending enormous incomes is basically impossible. Once sufficient self sustaining wealth has been invested in safe, low yield endeavors, the remainder becomes a toy, a rather dangerous one for the rest of us. It creates market bubbles and political influence at the domestic and international level not necessarily in proportion to the societal value of the ideas being promulgated.

A small % of the tax savings provided to the financial elite by the current system will provide the recipient with enormous influence in govt and in the general zeitgeist of any target population, particularly a population where "free speech" is bought and sold by the square mile.

That's us, and the changes made to the tax and business codes in this country over the last 30 years reflect such influence. Statistically, those changes serve the whole of America very poorly, if at all, but they have and will continue to serve those at the top to the detriment of the rest of us. That's the true legacy of Republican governance and the worship of greed among the general population fostered by it.

Can you explain how if someone invests $1 million in something, gets a capital gain of say $50,000, how that hurts the lower class? Or the middle class?

 

[Patranus]

Craig234 has this idea that government should always be "doing something" even if it is "doing something" just to be "doing something".

 

[Carmen813]

Palehorse says 35%, I say 42%, let's agree to 38.5% and call it a day. I've got less of a problem with an income cap tax at 35% than I do with capital gains taxes being so low. Income taxes are paid by people do work (i.e., produce a good or provide a service). Since those people are actually "doing" something, they should be able to keep more of their money. (Palehorse's argument)

As described Jhhnn above after a certain income level capital gains result in basically infinite wealth. Considering that these individuals produce basically nothing besides money it results in an increasing amount of wealth being concentrated at the top. You could argue that those profits are reinvested into other companies, which allows them to keep producing goods, but in reality most of this money sits in low interest accounts collecting dust (and more money). In our society money is power, and those with money can influence laws, create micro-bubbles, and ultimately do much harm. (which is Craig's point). Coincidentally, this is why guys like Warren Buffet believe it is unfair he pays less in taxes than his secretary.

The person who wanted a citation about wealth being collected at the top needs to do a 30 second google search. There is a lot of evidence that the middle and lower class have basically maintained pace with inflation, while the wealthy have become significantly wealthier.

Blackangst, it's not the matter of "small wealth" like a $50,000 profit, it's when you start talking hundreds of millions/billions being concentrated to a very small, elite, group.

 

[blackangst1]

Palehorse says 35%, I say 42%, let's agree to 38.5% and call it a day. I've got less of a problem with an income cap tax at 35% than I do with capital gains taxes being so low. Income taxes are paid by people do work (i.e., produce a good or provide a service). Since those people are actually "doing" something, they should be able to keep more of their money. (Palehorse's argument)

As described Jhhnn above after a certain income level capital gains result in basically infinite wealth. Considering that these individuals produce basically nothing besides money it results in an increasing amount of wealth being concentrated at the top. You could argue that those profits are reinvested into other companies, which allows them to keep producing goods, but in reality most of this money sits in low interest accounts collecting dust (and more money). In our society money is power, and those with money can influence laws, create micro-bubbles, and ultimately do much harm. (which is Craig's point). Coincidentally, this is why guys like Warren Buffet believe it is unfair he pays less in taxes than his secretary.

The person who wanted a citation about wealth being collected at the top needs to do a 30 second google search. There is a lot of evidence that the middle and lower class have basically maintained pace with inflation, while the wealthy have become significantly wealthier.

Blackangst, it's not the matter of "small wealth" like a $50,000 profit, it's when you start talking hundreds of millions/billions being concentrated to a very small, elite, group.

Lets get a few things straight.

First, wealth IS infinate. If someone makes $100 on capital gains or $100 million, it takes NO money from anyone. It is investment profits. Second, the money invested at some pojnt has probably already been taxed. Why keep taxing it? Third, the pure numbers of people making, as you say, "millions" in capital gains profits is so low. Fourth, how does making $1 million in capital gains take money away from the poor?

And lastly, to quote you:

There is a lot of evidence that the middle and lower class have basically maintained pace with inflation, while the wealthy have become significantly wealthier.

do you have a problem with the middle class barely keeping up, the wealthy getting wealthier, or both? If you *do* have a problem with the wealthy getting wealthier, why? Also, youre being disingenuous when you say this. Thousdands of people lost millions, even billions in a few cases, to the market correction last year. What makes you think they are getting wealthier, and why the hell does it matter? Why not fix things for the middle class? Do you honestly think that by say, doubling the tax rate the middle class will benefit? Youre out of your mind if you think that.

 

[nobodyknows]

Lets get a few things straight.

First, wealth IS infinate. If someone makes $100 on capital gains or $100 million, it takes NO money from anyone. It is investment profits.

Income is income. Why do the rich expect special treatment?

 

[Patranus]

Income is income. Why do the rich expect special treatment?

Why do the "poor" expect special treatment?

 

[blackangst1]

Income is income. Why do the rich expect special treatment?

AFAIK capital gains taxes are same for everyone, no? How is that special?

 

[nobodyknows]

AFAIK capital gains taxes are same for everyone, no? How is that special?

lol, It's pretty special for those with lots of money to invest, no?

I think your tax should be based off your total income (minus allowed deductions), not divided up into "special" categories. So it seems "special" to me.

 

[nobodyknows]

Why do the "poor" expect special treatment?

Which poor do you speak of? The deranged homeless person panhandling on the streets or the disabled, or the guy with 4 kids making minimum wage?

 

[BoberFett]

AFAIK capital gains taxes are same for everyone, no? How is that special?

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.

 

[spidey07]

AFAIK capital gains taxes are same for everyone, no? How is that special?

They're actually lower for lower incomes thanks to Bush (and not thinks to Obama because he wants them to expire which will increase the tax 400%, from 5% to 20)). The bottom two income brackets are taxed at only 5%. Talk about cutting taxes for the lower/middle class!

Also short term gains, under a year, are taxed as regular income.

 

[blackangst1]

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.

Then we can agree to disagree.

I wouldnt like it very well if I made, say, $300,000 one year (which was taxed), invested $100,000 of it and made, say, $15,000, and then got taxed again. Dont like it at all. Thankfully there are alternatives.

 

[Carmen813]

Lets get a few things straight.

First, wealth IS infinate. If someone makes $100 on capital gains or $100 million, it takes NO money from anyone. It is investment profits. Second, the money invested at some pojnt has probably already been taxed. Why keep taxing it? Third, the pure numbers of people making, as you say, "millions" in capital gains profits is so low. Fourth, how does making $1 million in capital gains take money away from the poor?

And lastly, to quote you:



do you have a problem with the middle class barely keeping up, the wealthy getting wealthier, or both? If you *do* have a problem with the wealthy getting wealthier, why? Also, youre being disingenuous when you say this. Thousdands of people lost millions, even billions in a few cases, to the market correction last year. What makes you think they are getting wealthier, and why the hell does it matter? Why not fix things for the middle class? Do you honestly think that by say, doubling the tax rate the middle class will benefit? Youre out of your mind if you think that.

Okay first off, calm the fuck down. Take a deep breath. Now, stop creating a straw man. At no point did I propose a 100% tax increase on capital gains.

Second, yes I have a problem with the wealthier getting wealthier if the lower and middle classes don't keep pace. They don't all have to rise at an equal rate, but if the vast MAJORITY of people's incomes are flat lined for a generation, while a very small minority is growing in wealth at an exponential rate, that's a problem for everyone. It's simply bad for societal stability. It creates an aristocratic class, which if you recall the founders were deathly afraid of doing. Usually the creation of an aristocracy is followed by torches, pitchforks, guillotines, and lots of blood shed.

My problem isn't that the middle class has "barely kept up," it's that they haven't kept up at all. They are maintaining pace with inflation, which means their net worth hasn't changed in nearly 30 years. In fact the only reason the middle class hasn't totally collapsed is because more and more women are entering the work place. Thus families have two incomes to support themselves.

Whether or not this is Republicans or Democrats fault is up to debate, but like most things, I doubt one side is entirely to blame.

 

[teddyv]

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.

Just a reminder that an investment is just that - it is a bet that something will bear fruit. Unless you are a partner at Goldman Sachs (and benefited from the 100% payout on highly risky and volatile mortgage credit swaps) then you are taking a RISK that you may alternatively end up with nothing. Sort of like the 100% secured creditors of Chrysler and GM who were forced to take pennies in favor of 55% ownership by the UAW. Well, not really I guess.

 

[Carmen813]

Then we can agree to disagree.

I wouldnt like it very well if I made, say, $300,000 one year (which was taxed), invested $100,000 of it and made, say, $15,000, and then got taxed again. Dont like it at all. Thankfully there are alternatives.

The $100,000 that is being invested isn't being taxed twice. The $15,000 (the "capital gain") you made, which hasn't been taxed yet, is being taxed for the first time. And if your $100,000 lost money and dropped in value to $90,000 you get a tax break.

 

[BoberFett]

Then we can agree to disagree.

I wouldnt like it very well if I made, say, $300,000 one year (which was taxed), invested $100,000 of it and made, say, $15,000, and then got taxed again. Dont like it at all. Thankfully there are alternatives.

Why do you feel as though you should not be taxed on the $15,000? I personally feel I shouldn't be taxed on the hours I traded for money, but we have to pay for this bloated government somehow.