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

[BoberFett]

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.

You're right investors take a risk, and I'm all for offsetting profits with loss. If one investment makes you $100K and another loses you $100K, your tax bill is $0. I'm just looking at net here.

 

[BoberFett]

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.

Exactly. Seems incredibly fair to me. Probably why we'll never see it.

 

[nobodyknows]

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.

Yes, buy lottoamerica tickets like the rest of us poor bastards have to do in hope of getting rich.

 

[drebo]

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.

Except that money made from investments isn't income. It's an increase in the value of something you partially own. Hence: capital gains. The $100,000 that was invested has already been taxed, either as gift tax or as income. Taxing the increase in value of that money as income is taxing it twice.

I see nothing wrong with this. I would not want to have to pay income taxes on my retirement investments every year they increased in value.

Edit: I should have been more clear...I see nothing wrong with NOT taxing the increase in value of investments as income.

 

[spidey07]

Except that money made from investments isn't income. It's an increase in the value of something you partially own. Hence: capital gains. The $100,000 that was invested has already been taxed, either as gift tax or as income. Taxing the increase in value of that money as income is taxing it twice.

I see nothing wrong with this. I would not want to have to pay income taxes on my retirement investments every year they increased in value.

You actually do in a way depending on how you set things up and their are limits to what you can contribute especially for HCEs. Dividends are taxed at LTCG right now thanks to bush tax cuts. When they soon expire those dividends will be taxed at STCG rates which will be exactly as normal income. Every year, year after year eroding your retirement and stealing your money.

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

1. Kept the Nation safe from external enemies.

2. Kept the Nation safe from external enemies.

3. Kept the Nation safe from external enemies.

 

[blackangst1]

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.

First, no need to to tell me to calm the fuck down, as Im not upset about anything

Second, in regards to your second paragraph...the wealthy you are probably talking about (who make the majority of their money from investments) are very rare, and a completely seperate issue from the issues with the middle class. Unless you can show how a wealthy investor's capital gains somehow needle into the middle class's finances. If you cant, (which you cant), then they should be seperate issues. Unfortunately most on the left use emotional catch phrases like "they get wealier on the backs of middle income America"...which is false.

And lastly, the reason I dont get upset or emotional about the issue is I am willing to agree to disagree on the handling of investments, and understand what *I* believe is fair and American-like is probably different than you. I have no problem with your POV, as long as you understand thats all it is-a POV. And youre right-its not a D or R thing as to why the middle class is lagging. Both are guilty.

 

[blackangst1]

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.

Because investing is a gamble, and mine to take. The idea of having to pay for that gamble goes against what I believe the foundation of America was built upon. Very could well be, as I mentioned in a previous response, a POV thing.

 

[Loyalist]

Three things? Ok. 1)Tamed the inflation beast, 2) Won the Cold War, which allowed for a large Peace dividend, and 3) Tax cuts, which, combined with the inflation busting, resulted in the middle class seeing significant gains in their earnings.

 

[blackangst1]

You're right investors take a risk, and I'm all for offsetting profits with loss. If one investment makes you $100K and another loses you $100K, your tax bill is $0. I'm just looking at net here.

Actually thats not quite right. You can only take a $3,000 loss at tax time, and then, even at the highest taxable rate, the tax savings is only about $1100. Also, because of the wash rule, if you re-invest into the investment within 30 days, you cant take the loss.

 

[blackangst1]

1. Kept the Nation safe from external enemies.

2. Kept the Nation safe from external enemies.

3. Kept the Nation safe from external enemies.

Maybe, but remember Rome fell from within.

 

[BoberFett]

Except that money made from investments isn't income. It's an increase in the value of something you partially own. Hence: capital gains. The $100,000 that was invested has already been taxed, either as gift tax or as income. Taxing the increase in value of that money as income is taxing it twice.

I see nothing wrong with this. I would not want to have to pay income taxes on my retirement investments every year they increased in value.

Edit: I should have been more clear...I see nothing wrong with NOT taxing the increase in value of investments as income.

So why am I paying taxes on anything I make over minimum wage? An hour of my time when I was 18 is the exact same as an hour of my time now that I'm in my mid 30s. All that's happened is that I've invested in myself and my time is now worth more than it was then because I'm more skilled. I should only be taxed on what I earned at the beginning of my career and not the additional amount I make now.

 

[BoberFett]

Because investing is a gamble, and mine to take. The idea of having to pay for that gamble goes against what I believe the foundation of America was built upon. Very could well be, as I mentioned in a previous response, a POV thing.

America was based on gambling? Is that your final answer?

 

[blackangst1]

America was based on gambling? Is that your final answer?

uh, no. Youre twisting my words.

And yes, America WAS a gamble

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

Maybe, but remember Rome fell from within.

Correct.

Liberals/Democrats pose the greater danger to the Nation than any outside force ever could.

 

[BoberFett]

Actually thats not quite right. You can only take a $3,000 loss at tax time, and then, even at the highest taxable rate, the tax savings is only about $1100. Also, because of the wash rule, if you re-invest into the investment within 30 days, you cant take the loss.

We're talking about how things should be, not the way they are.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Sodomy! Sodomy! and more Sodomy!

Some liked it, most didn't

 

[blackangst1]

We're talking about how things should be, not the way they are.

Oh. Then your post of it all being a wash was how it should be then. Not of your understanding of how it actually is. Got it.

IMHO, tax me on my income. Whatever is left over, leave it the fuck alone. If I lose it all, tough shit for me. If I gain 100 fold from it, good for me. Either way, leave it alone. If I save my entire life and have a nice nest egg later, leave IT the fuck alone also. The origination of those investments have already been taxed. Seems fair to me.

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

Fearmonger much? obviously so.

The part you forget to mention, intentionally, I'm sure, is that higher tax brackets only apply to income above the lower bracket. Warren Buffet pays the same tax rate on the first X so many dollars of earned income as the guy who earns only X, other factors being equal.

Ask the average family, earning ~40K, how they'd feel about paying big taxes on big money, hundreds of millions per year... Only the lamest worshippers of wealth would object.

There's a whole lot of negative talk about "entitlement" on the far right, but there are none who feel more entitled than those at the top, as the whining about taxes from billionaires illustrates all too vividly... not to mention the wannabee chorus coming up behind, as if they'll ever get anywhere above the 90th percentile- 90% of people never do.

The republican legacy is massive transfer of wealth and income to the top, enormous federal debt, job loss and destabilized economy, apparently endless wars of occupation, an increasingly unaffordable healthcare system, bigger govt, and a bunch of delusional true believers who can't face the truth about what they believe so fervently...

 

[palehorse]

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.

Are you suggesting that capital gains be lumped in with all other income for tax purposes?

Picture, for just a moment, what that will do to the poor and middle class investors... here's a hint: they'd get fucked.

Perhaps a more progressive capital gains system is needed, but not one that is very aggressive at any level.

 

[Craig234]

Are you suggesting that capital gains be lumped in with all other income for tax purposes?

Picture, for just a moment, what that will do to the poor and middle class investors... here's a hint: they'd get fucked.

Perhaps a more progressive capital gains system is needed, but not one that is very aggressive at any level.

I haven't zeroed in to support your policy mentioned to discuss, but I like it. Poor and middle investors need not get screwed, especially sinc the massive revenues from the rich could be offset in earned tax cuts.

Also remember that it would all be part of a progressive system, so people who don't make thatmuch would pay lower rates.

If you really wanted te first amounts to get a lower rate, and the big amounts to get a higher rate, no real problem with that either.

 

[palehorse]

I haven't zeroed in to support your policy mentioned to discuss, but I like it. Poor and middle investors need not get screwed, especially sinc the massive revenues from the rich could be offset in earned tax cuts.

Also remember that it would all be part of a progressive system, so people who don't make that much would pay lower rates.

If you really wanted te first amounts to get a lower rate, and the big amounts to get a higher rate, no real problem with that either.

As far as I know, the CG taxes are about to revert back to pre-2003 rates -- when the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire -- so we're actually going to soon be moving further away from any semblance of a progressive system.

I understand that the CG rates are already tied closely to a person's income tax bracket, with the highest income tax bracket folks (35 percenters) already paying the highest CG taxes as well (roughly 28&#37... so just how high do you need that percentage to go? Should they both be marked at 35% and be done with it?

Also, how do you feel about Obama causing the CG tax rates to go up (in some cases, double!) for lower and middle class earners next year? Did you even realize that was a by-product of letting Bush's tax cuts expire? I bet that many Dems didn't realize what that would mean for lower and middle-class investors.

DOH!

 

[MotF Bane]

The republican legacy is massive transfer of wealth and income to the top, enormous federal debt, job loss and destabilized economy, apparently endless wars of occupation, an increasingly unaffordable healthcare system, bigger govt, and a bunch of delusional true believers who can't face the truth about what they believe so fervently...

All bolded statements fit for the other party as well. See, both parties suck.

 

[Jhhnn]

As far as I know, the CG taxes are about to revert back to pre-2003 rates -- when the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire -- so we're actually going to soon be moving further away from any semblance of a progressive system.

I understand that the CG rates are already tied closely to a person's income tax bracket, with the highest income tax bracket folks (35 percenters) already paying the highest CG taxes as well (roughly 28&#37... so just how high do you need that percentage to go? Should they both be marked at 35% and be done with it?

Also, how do you feel about Obama causing the CG tax rates to go up (in some cases, double!) for lower and middle class earners next year? Did you even realize that was a by-product of letting Bush's tax cuts expire? I bet that many Dems didn't realize what that would mean for lower and middle-class investors.

There's so much disinformation there that it's hard to know where to start. First off, the maximum current tax rate for capital gains is just over 15%, not the 28% claimed-

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

That's how the top 400 earners achieved a tax rate of 17% on an average income of $263M in 2007, which was linked earlier.

Your sentiment for the plight of lower and middle class earners who pay capital gains is touching, but bogus. the lower 60% of filers don't pay enough in capital gains taxes to matter-

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/cg0306.pdf

Let's not forget that capital gains aren't subject to payroll taxes, either, a significant part of the taxes paid by those incomes below the SS cutoff...

Here's a chart of historical capital gains tax rates, currently the lowest they've been since the 1920's... but I'm sure there's no correlation between what happened then and what's happening now, right?

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

As for MotF Bane's remark, I'll just offer something Bill Clinton said-

"When people are thinking, that's good for Democrats"

It's easy to be a nay-sayer, particularly when you have nothing constructive to offer...

 

[JSt0rm]

1. Kept the Nation safe from external enemies.

2. Kept the Nation safe from external enemies.

3. Kept the Nation safe from external enemies.

Funny. The largest terrorist attack happened on your watch and you now say you kept the nation safe from external enemies. lmao.