• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

The people who receive the disproportionate share of government spending are not big

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
Correct. But that has nothing to do with any kind of "transfer of wealth". The wealth that "the rich" have didnt used to be in the bank or investment accounts of the middle or lower class. There is no "transfer of wealth".

And you really need to clairify your comments instead of making broad sweeping ones. Obama is rich. Clinton is rich. Bush is rich. They ALL pay a higher percentage of federal income taxes than I do. As they should. The scenario youre talking about - making 95+% of your income from capital gains - affects VERY few people.

Capital gains is one very easy to communciate example of how the progressive tax system has been hijacked by lobby. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of similar impacting tax code.

If joe the tradesman pays %25 effective tax and mittens pays %13 effective tax over the span of 20 years, what do you think occurs?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Its income but taxed at 15%
when someone actually working a labor job pays more than %15
Thats one simple example of redistrubution to the top.
You mean except for the fact that 40-50% of average capital gains are simply inflation?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,991
853
126
Capital gains is one very easy to communciate example of how the progressive tax system has been hijacked by lobby. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of similar impacting tax code.
Im not disagreeing with you here.

If joe the tradesman pays %25 effective tax and mittens pays %13 effective tax over the span of 20 years, what do you think occurs?
Mitt keep a higher percentage of his money. NONE of which came from joe.

Duh.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
Im not disagreeing with you here.



Mitt keep a higher percentage of his money. NONE of which came from joe.

Duh.
So if Mitt is keeping more of his money for 20 years and Joe is keeping less of his, at the end of a 20 year period what has the tax code done?
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,345
14,566
136
Correct. But that has nothing to do with any kind of "transfer of wealth". The wealth that "the rich" have didnt used to be in the bank or investment accounts of the middle or lower class. There is no "transfer of wealth".
Quite the contrary. It used to be in home equity, which has been transformed into debt instruments owned by wealth holders.



See the blue line? That's homeowner wealth.

See the red line? That's investor wealth.

It'll be a very long while before those lines cross back in the other direction, if ever.

You also ignore the internationalization of capitalism, the amount of wealth that American capitalists have offshore, which has grown enormously. In many respects, that wealth has been gained by stripping wealth in this country, shipping it offshore, a la Mitt & Bain...
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Can you please explain?

Are you saying that %40-%50 of a capital gains are only at the rate of inflation?
I believe it is generally accepted that stocks appreciate at 6-7% annually. And inflation has historically been ~3%.

This means that 40-50% of stock appreciated is really just inflation and not actual gain in value.

This would imply that for fairness at the

35% bracket CG should be 17.5% - 21%

25% bracket CG should be 12.5% - 15%

So really we should create Long term capital gains brackets and raise LTCG a bit for the highest earners and lower it for middle income earners.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
I believe it is generally accepted that stocks appreciate at 6-7% annually. And inflation has historically been ~3%.

This means that 40-50% of stock appreciated is really just inflation and not actual gain in value.

This would imply that for fairness at the

35% bracket CG should be 17.5% - 21%

25% bracket CG should be 12.5% - 15%

So really we should create Long term capital gains brackets and raise LTCG a bit for the highest earners and lower it for middle income earners.

at the end of the day if there is a net gain, its income and should be taxed as such.

I am all for sweeping tax and entitlement reform, however snce I also believe we have a systemic problem with our elections/goverment that need to be addressed, I dont favor approcahing the issues until those issues are addressed.

If I was running for office my platform would be simple.

1. Outlaw Lobby, all of it.
2. Publically finance campaigns

Then you would have a fundemental starting point to elect leaders based on Ideas and solutions to problems vs. what we have now. No sort of meaningful reform or change can occur until these two items are addressed.

and until they are addressed we will have the corrupt goverment we deserve.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
181
106
Yet Obama continues to try to press class warfare.

Take from those that have and hand it to those that do not.
Ya mean Blue states supporting the needy/greedy Red states? 'cause if it's not, you need to grow out of your delusions.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,991
853
126
So if Mitt is keeping more of his money for 20 years and Joe is keeping less of his, at the end of a 20 year period what has the tax code done?
Allowed those who make their money from capital gains to pay a lower tax rate than those who earn regular income.

Transfer still not found.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,991
853
126
---snipped---

You also ignore the internationalization of capitalism, the amount of wealth that American capitalists have offshore, which has grown enormously. In many respects, that wealth has been gained by stripping wealth in this country, shipping it offshore, a la Mitt & Bain...
I didnt ignore it, I just didnt bring it up because it has nothing to do with the specific faux "transfer of wealth" that we were discussing.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
Allowed those who make their money from capital gains to pay a lower tax rate than those who earn regular income.

Transfer still not found.
Your stuck on the word transfer rather than the actual act of what occurs.

Let me help
Over 20 years the rich get richer the poor get poorer, because of tax code that the rich lobbied for to make it so.

Its turning the government into the middleman for transfer of wealth.

Lets tax the rich at %70 and have anyone who makes under 100k pay no taxes for 20 years, lets see what you call that when its said and done.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,991
853
126
at the end of the day if there is a net gain, its income and should be taxed as such.
If you dont understand the difference between cap gain income and earned income, and why theyre taxed and treated differently, I cant help you. Unfortunately, its not that simple. Hell. If youre going to do that, you might as well treat ALL income from ALL sources as income and tax it the same. Which is idiotic. I guess we can agree to disagree here.

I am all for sweeping tax and entitlement reform, however snce I also believe we have a systemic problem with our elections/goverment that need to be addressed, I dont favor approcahing the issues until those issues are addressed.

If I was running for office my platform would be simple.

1. Outlaw Lobby, all of it.
2. Publically finance campaigns

Then you would have a fundemental starting point to elect leaders based on Ideas and solutions to problems vs. what we have now. No sort of meaningful reform or change can occur until these two items are addressed.

and until they are addressed we will have the corrupt goverment we deserve.
I actually agree 100% with this :)
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Your stuck on the word transfer rather than the actual act of what occurs.

Let me help
Over 20 years the rich get richer the poor get poorer, because of tax code that the rich lobbied for to make it so.

Its turning the government into the middleman for transfer of wealth.

Lets tax the rich at %70 and have anyone who makes under 100k pay no taxes for 20 years, lets see what you call that when its said and done.
Except the rich getting rich thing started in the 1970s before Reagan...
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,991
853
126
Your stuck on the word transfer rather than the actual act of what occurs.

Let me help
Over 20 years the rich get richer the poor get poorer, because of tax code that the rich lobbied for to make it so.
Ive never disagreed with this. And the left (and you) are the one that keeps parroting the faux "transfer of wealth" horse shit. Im stuck on it because its FALSE.

Its turning the government into the middleman for transfer of wealth.
JHC there is no transfer of anything. Wealth is NOT finite.

Lets tax the rich at %70 and have anyone who makes under 100k pay no taxes for 20 years, lets see what you call that when its said and done.
As I understand it you would want to tax ANY income at 70%. Sorry. I dont buy that plan. Its ludicrous.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
2
0
Let me help
Over 20 years the rich get richer the poor get poorer, because of tax code that the rich lobbied for to make it so.

Its turning the government into the middleman for transfer of wealth.

Lets tax the rich at %70 and have anyone who makes under 100k pay no taxes for 20 years, lets see what you call that when its said and done.
Funny you should mention 70%. That was the rate we were at in 1970 when the decoupling of income becan. Well before an Reaganomics or any drastic tax cuts by the government.

 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
If you dont understand the difference between cap gain income and earned income, and why theyre taxed and treated differently, I cant help you. Unfortunately, its not that simple. Hell. If youre going to do that, you might as well treat ALL income from ALL sources as income and tax it the same. Which is idiotic. I guess we can agree to disagree here.



I actually agree 100% with this :)
And this should be our starting point, lets agree to tackle these two fundemental things right now together and handle all of the other shit once that gets done.

If we could as Americans just do this, things would get fixed. but were too busy fighting about largely unimportant stuff, meanwhile the system gets more corrupt every election cycle.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,991
853
126
And this should be our starting point, lets agree to tackle these two fundemental things right now together and handle all of the other shit once that gets done.

If we could as Americans just do this, things would get fixed. but were too busy fighting about largely unimportant stuff, meanwhile the system gets more corrupt every election cycle.
:thumbsup:
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
571
126
Indeed it does. We used to have a deal. It was called the New Deal. American capitalists hired American workers, paid decent wages due in part to unions & govt competition for workers. Mild Socialist underpinnings cemented the whole thing, creating a mixed economy where everybody shared for mutual benefit. Progressive taxes. SS. Medicare. Financial regulations. Insured deposits. Unemployment compensation. So forth & so on.

It wasn't workers who broke that deal, it was capitalists, the financial elite. The truth of it all is revealed in the explosive inequality created over the last 30 years.
And when unions raise the price of labor to uncompetitive heights, are your socialists going to force the employers to not outsource for cheaper labor? Who're the truly greedy in that situation? Are the socialists then going to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize these now-uncompetitive enterprises, in essence forcing taxpayers to buy uncompetitive products they neither want nor receive, all in the name of "fairness"? Is this they good system you're talking about?

And this explosive inequality. Is it not possible that arbitrary restrictions on trade, bailouts, and subsidies keep the powerful powerful and the impoverished impoverished by means of selecting winners and losers according to their political or lobbying power as opposed to honest victories or failures in the marketplace? If a businessman can make more money not by making a superior product, but by hiring the best lobbyists for government handouts, doesn't that represent a major problem?

Righties always sidestep & head straight for denial in the face of the most pertinent questions of all- If low taxes at the top create jobs, where the fuck are the jobs? If the so-called "Job Creators" aren't living up to their end of the bargain, why should they be pampered for not doing so? If the rest of America is called upon to sacrifice, why should they escape some of their own? Merely because they're Rich?
Righties can take the sidestep that lefties do when challenged on stimulus: If the problem doesn't go away, you didn't spend enough money. Similarly with us, if you the problem doesn't go away, you didn't cut enough taxes.

Job creators aren't living up to their bargain? You mean, they're not producing enough employment sufficient to make you happy? Surely, you know the reasoning behind this. There can be no other answer then that (1) they're just being greedy bastards, and (2) they want to make Obama look bad. For this brazen offense, you decree they must sacrifice. Nevermind the small business owners who have put their life-savings on the line or have otherwise bet the farm. Nevermind that they pay taxes already. Nevermind that perhaps, like most people, they sense a serious, grave reckoning on the horizon, and are hunkering down in hopes of weathering it.

But no. We should force them to hire people, whether they want them or not. They'll do what we tell them to do. After all, it's not like they're normal people, right? They're just greedy pricks.
 
Last edited:

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
0
0
Where did it come from then? He did not print it himself. It came out of somebody's pockets. Duh.
It's hard for butt clowns like you to understand that he earned the money. Get a job and find out for yourself what that is
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,345
14,566
136
And when unions raise the price of labor to uncompetitive heights, are your socialists going to force the employers to not outsource for cheaper labor? Who're the truly greedy in that situation? Are the socialists then going to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize these now-uncompetitive enterprises, in essence forcing taxpayers to buy uncompetitive products they neither want nor receive, all in the name of "fairness"? Is this they good system you're talking about?

And this explosive inequality. Is it not possible that arbitrary restrictions on trade, bailouts, and subsidies keep the powerful powerful and the impoverished impoverished by means of selecting winners and losers according to their political or lobbying power as opposed to honest victories or failures in the marketplace? If a businessman can make more money not by making a superior product, but by hiring the best lobbyists for government handouts, doesn't that represent a major problem?



Righties can take the sidestep that lefties do when challenged on stimulus: If the problem doesn't go away, you didn't spend enough money. Similarly with us, if you the problem doesn't go away, you didn't cut enough taxes.

Job creators aren't living up to their bargain? You mean, they're not producing enough employment sufficient to make you happy? Surely, you know the reasoning behind this. There can be no other answer then that (1) they're just being greedy bastards, and (2) they want to make Obama look bad. For this brazen offense, you decree they must sacrifice. Nevermind the small business owners who have put their life-savings on the line or have otherwise bet the farm. Nevermind that they pay taxes already. Nevermind that perhaps, like most people, they sense a serious, grave reckoning on the horizon, and are hunkering down in hopes of weathering it.

But no. We should force them to hire people, whether they want them or not. They'll do what we tell them to do. After all, it's not like they're normal people, right? They're just greedy pricks.
Standard rightwing raving boilerplate.

American capitalists are doing very, very well indeed- better than ever. Claiming that they've somehow been abused for the last 30 years is a bad joke, but that's what you're doing.

That's obviously why the top 1% share of income has doubled in that time frame, and why the top .1% now make basically the same share that the entire top 1% made in 1980.

Poor Things! Sooo Abused! Send the Wahmbulance!

Raising their taxes would be exactly like the invasion of Poland!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY