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

[spidey07]

Jhnnn, just because it doesn't affect your poor ass doesn't mean the merit isn't bad.

Think of typical white collar worker who tried to be smart and take advantage of dividend reinvestment to provide for his family and their life in the future.

He will now face a substancial tax on those dividends that he reinvested. Every year. A tax penalty for him being smart with his money. Toss on the tax for good health insurance and you're advocating screwing him even more.

Yeah, I'll move my money somewhere else especially given the restrictions on HCE's.

 

[Descartes]

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.

The origination of the investments for MOST Americans is NOT already taxed since most invest in their company's 401k.

And the gain of 100 IS income. That's the point. If you take into your possession any asset for any reason, it's income. It doesn't matter how you got it, legal or illegal, investment or no investment... it's income. Granted, there are obviously different asset classes that grant you some benefits from a tax perspective, but the point is that it's all income.

Surely it doesn't take a genius to see the problem we'd have if we taxed income in the way you're describing.

 

[Jhhnn]

Modern stocks don't pay squat for dividends, spidey. P/E ratios are astronomical. And I really don't know if the usual reinvestment options are taxable except when the stocks are sold, and you certainly haven't offered any support that they are.

I am that guy you refer to, except that I'm blue collar. I couldn't afford the downgrade in pay to white collar.

Most middle class investors take advantage of the tax deferred status of 401K's, IRA's and similar, anyway. Current trends are also to buy repo properties whose rents exceed payments by a substantial margin, become a landlord...

 

[spidey07]

Modern stocks don't pay squat for dividends, spidey. P/E ratios are astronomical. And I really don't know if the usual reinvestment options are taxable except when the stocks are sold, and you certainly haven't offered any support that they are.

I am that guy you refer to, except that I'm blue collar. I couldn't afford the downgrade in pay to white collar.

Most middle class investors take advantage of the tax deferred status of 401K's, IRA's and similar, anyway. Current trends are also to buy repo properties whose rents exceed payments by a substantial margin, become a landlord...

I have to file all my dividends as they are all taxable at LTCG outside of the deferred options you mention. If you do not then you are a tax cheat.

The classification of dividends is set to go to STCG and as such it's gonna hit you. It's the principal (sp intentional) of the matter.

 

[drebo]

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.

Are you really that stupid?

First off, I'll address your comment literally: I've stated on here before that a federal income tax is unconstitutional and wrong. Do you agree with me that it should be abolished, on the grounds you've just spoken? Of course not, because I know that's not how you meant your inane post.

Taken as you meant it: your income (the amount your employer pays you) is a contract between you and your employer to pay you to render a service, of which you have agreed to let the government have a peice. You aren't selling yourself to your employer, and you can't "invest" in yourself. All you can do by gaining education is give yourselves more bargaining chips at the table with your employer when you negotiate proper compensation for your time. That's nowhere near the same as an investment in a product or company.

Once again, the money that was used to invest has already been taxed. To tax the increase in the value of those investments is to tax it twice.

 

[drebo]

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.

I have a great idea, Craig. Let's cut government spending. Then we won't NEED so many taxes. Wouldn't that be best for ALL involved?

 

[nick1985]

I have a great idea, Craig. Let's cut government spending. Then we won't NEED so many taxes. Wouldn't that be best for ALL involved?

Agreed.

 

[drebo]

The origination of the investments for MOST Americans is NOT already taxed since most invest in their company's 401k.

And the gain of 100 IS income. That's the point. If you take into your possession any asset for any reason, it's income. It doesn't matter how you got it, legal or illegal, investment or no investment... it's income. Granted, there are obviously different asset classes that grant you some benefits from a tax perspective, but the point is that it's all income.

Surely it doesn't take a genius to see the problem we'd have if we taxed income in the way you're describing.

Ok, so you want to impose a SMART TAX on people for investing in their retirement and attempting to AVOID being a burden of the state?

That sounds like a wonderful idea.

Also, there is a maximum untaxable contribution to 401Ks. After that, you pay income tax on it just like normal. Most 401Ks barely outpace inflation in terms of dollar value. You seriously want to tax them at a rate many times more than inflation?

 

[MotF Bane]

I have a great idea, Craig. Let's cut government spending. Then we won't NEED so many taxes. Wouldn't that be best for ALL involved?

No, not that, never that!!!

 

[nobodyknows]

I have to laugh at all the dumb asses who still think they're going to get rich in the stock market.

 

[palehorse]

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

Sorry, my original numbers were just a hair off... but, the highest current rate is currently 35% on STCG's made by those in the 35% income tax bracket. (Which, btw, will climb to 39.6%, for both, in 2011... that should make you happy! )

There are several types of CG taxation Craig, not just LTCG (which you were referring to with the 15% maximum you mentioned)... But then again, speaking of LTCG, please study the top chart at the following link, especially the column on the far right that reflects the LTCG rates that will go into effect once the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire.

Notice anything about the 15% income tax bracket and their future LTCG tax rates?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States

Here's a profile of earners (regular income) in the 15% income tax club who will see their LTCG go from 0% to 15% overnight:
Single: $8,351– $33,950
Married filing jointly: $16,701 – $67,900
Married filing separately: $8,351 – $33,950

What class are they again? So much for their longterm investments...

I'll continue to look for a chart that includes all of the 2011 percentages, but my point stands: allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, in their entirety, will hit the lower and middle classes as well as "the evil rich folk." Do the Dems have a plan to address that issue, or will they sweep it under the rug while trying to claim that "only the rich will be effected" by the subsequent tax increases across the board?

 

[Craig234]

I have a great idea, Craig

I'll be polite.

Let's cut government spending. Then we won't NEED so many taxes. Wouldn't that be best for ALL involved?

You're off topic, but not surprisingly, that's not the first time the htread has that.

Tell you what. You lay out the federal spending, and then lay out the cuts you suggest, with the goal.

I'd prefer you do it in a new thread but if you can't help yourself, here.

I'd lke to see that as a starting point. Remember, be specific. Talk about the effects of the cuts.

Are you going to cut benefits for the middle class you say you are helping?

 

[drebo]

I'll be polite.



You're off topic, but not surprisingly, that's not the first time the htread has that.

Tell you what. You lay out the federal spending, and then lay out the cuts you suggest, with the goal.

I'd prefer you do it in a new thread but if you can't help yourself, here.

I'd lke to see that as a starting point. Remember, be specific. Talk about the effects of the cuts.

Are you going to cut benefits for the middle class you say you are helping?

You just REALLY don't get it, do you? Are you so disenfranchised from the middle class that you believe they need their hand held in order to take a piss in the morning?

The Middle Class DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR 99% OF THE SOCIAL WELFARE PROGRAMS PROPOSED BY EITHER SIDE. All the middle class does is PAY for these programs.

The point, in the context of this thread, is that the BLOCKING of social programs which will put unsustainable tax burdens ON THE MIDDLE CLASS is what is so much better for the middle class than any program the government could come up with, because inevitably, the middle class will not qualify for that program.

We need LESS programs, not more. That's what will help the middle class more than anything.

 

[Jhhnn]

Sorry, my original numbers were just a hair off... but, the highest current rate is currently 35% on STCG's made by those in the 35% income tax bracket. (Which, btw, will climb to 39.6%, for both, in 2011... that should make you happy! )

There are several types of CG taxation Craig, not just LTCG (which you were referring to with the 15% maximum you mentioned)... But then again, speaking of LTCG, please study the top chart at the following link, especially the column on the far right that reflects the LTCG rates that will go into effect once the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire.

Notice anything about the 15% income tax bracket and their future LTCG tax rates?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States

Here's a profile of earners (regular income) in the 15% income tax club who will see their LTCG go from 0% to 15% overnight:
Single: $8,351– $33,950
Married filing jointly: $16,701 – $67,900
Married filing separately: $8,351 – $33,950

What class are they again? So much for their longterm investments...

I'll continue to look for a chart that includes all of the 2011 percentages, but my point stands: allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, in their entirety, will hit the lower and middle classes as well as "the evil rich folk." Do the Dems have a plan to address that issue, or will they sweep it under the rug while trying to claim that "only the rich will be effected" by the subsequent tax increases across the board?

Nice try, Palehorse. In your previous referenced post, you failed to differentiate between STCG and LTCG, rather deceptively mentioning the 28% rate as if it applied to both.

Let's face it- STCG's aren't really investment, anyway- they're speculation.

You also return to the fanciful and imaginary "tax increase" that lower and mid income folks "might" experience when CG rates return to normal. It's a complete red herring, given that earners in the mentioned brackets basically don't have capital gains to tax because they don't have investments outside of 401k's and IRA's. Most don't even have that. I linked the stats, which you ignore.

Can't tax what people don't have, regardless of the spin applied.

Tell you what- Let's just tax LTCG's as earned income, STCG's 5 points higher to encourage market stability, call it a day. The near imaginary "small investors" your heart bleeds for wouldn't do badly at all...

 

[Craig234]

You just REALLY don't get it, do you? Are you so disenfranchised from the middle class that you believe they need their hand held in order to take a piss in the morning?

The Middle Class DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR 99% OF THE SOCIAL WELFARE PROGRAMS PROPOSED BY EITHER SIDE. All the middle class does is PAY for these programs.

The point, in the context of this thread, is that the BLOCKING of social programs which will put unsustainable tax burdens ON THE MIDDLE CLASS is what is so much better for the middle class than any program the government could come up with, because inevitably, the middle class will not qualify for that program.

We need LESS programs, not more. That's what will help the middle class more than anything.

There's been a chain of me replying, and then deciding not to reply to you because of excessiive incivility, but we already have this exchange going so it's confusing to just not reply.

Anyway, you're just terribly ignorant of the facts. Putting aside your restating of my words from cutting benefits for the middle class to your adding the word 'welfare', you don't know what money is spent on.

Take a look at the federal budget, and categorize it for benefitting 'rich', 'middle', 'poor' and 'everyone'.

You will find vast sums spent to benefit the middle. You sound like an ideologue who has never seenthe budget, with an imaginary horde of poor living in government-paid mansions.

You think the middle class does't benefit from social security, medicare, pell grants, small business loans, freedie/fannie, heck, the Smithsonian and national parks?

The poor don't get the massive payments you allege. They do get some very important aid for basic costs.

 

[nick1985]

Craig234 is an idiot. IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

IDIOCY ABOUND!!!!!!



Wow, that WAS fun!

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

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

In war, you expect casualties.

9/11 notwithstanding, the Nation is still safe. That is because of an aggressive fighting force promoted by Republicans. Liberals/Democrats like to negotiate safety. It never worked and never will.

 

[BoberFett]

Are you really that stupid?

First off, I'll address your comment literally: I've stated on here before that a federal income tax is unconstitutional and wrong. Do you agree with me that it should be abolished, on the grounds you've just spoken? Of course not, because I know that's not how you meant your inane post.

Taken as you meant it: your income (the amount your employer pays you) is a contract between you and your employer to pay you to render a service, of which you have agreed to let the government have a peice. You aren't selling yourself to your employer, and you can't "invest" in yourself. All you can do by gaining education is give yourselves more bargaining chips at the table with your employer when you negotiate proper compensation for your time. That's nowhere near the same as an investment in a product or company.

Once again, the money that was used to invest has already been taxed. To tax the increase in the value of those investments is to tax it twice.

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?

 

[nick1985]

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?

lol

 

[blackangst1]

Originally Posted by BoberFett
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?

lol

yah...isnt it fun when toddlers pitch tantrums?

 

[nobodyknows]

[/I]





yah...isnt it fun when toddlers pitch tantrums?

So now you can hear yourself as we hear you??

 

[palehorse]

Nice try, Palehorse. In your previous referenced post, you failed to differentiate between STCG and LTCG, rather deceptively mentioning the 28% rate as if it applied to both.

Let's face it- STCG's aren't really investment, anyway- they're speculation.

You also return to the fanciful and imaginary "tax increase" that lower and mid income folks "might" experience when CG rates return to normal. It's a complete red herring, given that earners in the mentioned brackets basically don't have capital gains to tax because they don't have investments outside of 401k's and IRA's. Most don't even have that. I linked the stats, which you ignore.

Can't tax what people don't have, regardless of the spin applied.

Tell you what- Let's just tax LTCG's as earned income, STCG's 5 points higher to encourage market stability, call it a day. The near imaginary "small investors" your heart bleeds for wouldn't do badly at all...

I mentioned the 28% rate in reference to "CG taxes" -- an all-encompassing reference to every type of CG taxes. But, you knew that already, didn't you? The great irony here is that you then turned around and cherry-picked the LTCG percentage (15%) to try and make your own point. Who was it that is trying to "spin" this again?

You also managed to completely dodge, duck, dive, and... dodge the entire issue of the 15% income tax bracket seeing their LTCG taxes skyrocket from 0 to 15% overnight; and you did so by claiming that nobody in said brackets invest "enough to matter." I'm sure that a few of them would disagree with you. But, what do you care? After all, they're not "enough to matter."

That picture of the you with your fingers stuck in your ears is fucking perfect... it's exactly how I've always pictured you.

 

[stateofbeasley]

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?

Is this the kind of discussion that is appropriate at AnandTech?

As a supporter of family values, I must condemn these statements. This sets a very bad example for children who read these pages.

 

[Jhhnn]

I mentioned the 28% rate in reference to "CG taxes" -- an all-encompassing reference to every type of CG taxes. But, you knew that already, didn't you? The great irony here is that you then turned around and cherry-picked the STCG percentage (15%) to try and make your own point. Who was it that is trying to "spin" this again?

You also managed to completely dodge, duck, dive, and... dodge the entire issue of the 15% income tax bracket seeing their LTCG taxes skyrocket from 0 to 15% overnight; and you did so by claiming that nobody in said brackets invest "enough to matter." I'm sure that a few of them would disagree with you. But, what do you care? After all, they're not "enough to matter."

That picture of the you with your fingers stuck in your ears is fucking perfect... it's exactly how I've always pictured you.

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%.

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

 

[Craig234]

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%.

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

THe vast majority of capital gains income for the rich is LTCG. IIRC, the short term is an irrelevant blip.

Seems to me that Palrhorse - I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that it was an accident - left off the dinstinction, we knowing the difference assumed it was shorthand for LTCG, then he played 'gotcha'.

Talking abiout the two rates sure sounds 'fair' as if they both are important, but, again IIRC, when one dwarfs the others, that's not the case.

We're talking about very rich people who can keep vast sums invested without taxation for decades.