realter--Can you stay on topic. WHO said rich conservatives are the only evil? GO ahead. Give SOME facts and stop with the hystrionics, inability to read, and escessive !!!!!!!!!!
I'll quote myself AGAIN since you're not reading: "I said let's not target the poorest, weakest people in our society by CUTTING there. START with the biggest welfare queens--the Mitt Romneys, Exxons, big pharma, etc. etc. "
See how it says START with the biggest welfare queens, the biggest offenders, instead of picking on those poorest, weakest, like homeless vets, wasting funds FIRST.
I can stay on topic the question is are you at all capable of posting without name calling???
Forgive my histrionics, you know how many of your friends were in those towers that day? And died.
Personally I think we should bring them all home, let all those countries sort their own messes out, it would save us a ton, and maybe we would have the money to pay our military near what we pay congress.
The reason I said the evil conservative remark is because you bash romney, Cheney, et al, in post after post.
And you know what? I DO check facts not on news websites, either.
If you want to beat up on bush's people (Cheney), etc. Then you open yourself up to people wanting to defend them.
Charlie Rangel ?
All of these people used their office for monetary gain under questionable circumstances, yet you NEVER seem to mention them. They were at least as guilty as cheney was at various things, but they are ok??
But that's just it we can't focus on what we agree on.
Originally Posted by Beentheredonethat
We have a memorial near my school with about 30 gravestones. I haven't name-called. Look. I told you to stop yelling and focus on what you want to say.
So, we agree. Bring the military home. That would save TONS of money and be a huge step in gaining some gain on the deficit.
As for who I bring up, I just bring up the slimiest people I can think of, it doesn't matter whether they are bloods or crips--it's all just stupid gangbanging. I brought up Cheney because someone said it, and he had a lot to do with going into Iraq for no reason and made a ton of money off it. I don't CARE what "side" it is. Stop ALL of the cheating. I'm betting right now there are few politicians who aren't being bought in some way by someone to make "laws" to benefit them. THAT is the whole problem, and that leads to campaign finance reform, getting rid of Citizens United, et al.
I can certainly focus on what we agree on and go from there. I said it a million times, and you agree. WAY downsize the military. There are a TON of other ways to cut--subsidies for farming, oil, etc. We ALSO need income. My focus is we need to up income and we all should pay a little more to pay down debt. At LEAST make the tax code more fair so it's not "legal" to be immoral and cheat it.
If they are abiding by the law, how are they the 'biggest offenders'
Should they NOT take advantage of the current law simply because it pisses you off?
And how is it you lump Mitt Romney (an individual) with Exxon? I thought corporations gave up there individual identity (which is why they can't contend Obamacare on religious reasons).
Which is it?
IF the wealthiest some how bought off the system to lower CG taxes from 20-15 and it does benefit everyone, why is this bad?
Oh that's right-ain't good unless you PUNISH those that work hard, save, etc.
PUNISH THE RICH! PUNISH THE RICH!
Let's just call it what it is...
But first, spending cuts. We need to not give any of them a dime until we get spending cuts, because they never cut, they always say they will but they dont
Well, as someone said on the other thread, if law abiding people are on welfare, how are they the "big offenders?" Everyone is complaining about people getting something for nothing. That's my point.
Should the poor and slimey people NOT take advantage of the law simply because it pisses you off? It's LEGAL.
Mitt Romney (et all--I use him because he said all of this proudly running for president, sigh and Exxon are all lumped into where ALL of this money is going to because we subsidize them with OUR tax dollars, a LOT.
One more time. Capital Gains. How does it hurt? The loss of INCOME by dropping it from 20% to 15% is HUGE. You can't spend money if you don't take in money, and because they have exponentially way more money than those it was designed for, they make exponentially more profit. In the last 20 years the top 1% has increased income 300% while the 99% only 7%. Do you seriously not see something wrong with a 293% gap?
So, you're saying we should PUNIsh the elderly and hard working 99%? IS that it? Punish your grandma. Punish you mom. Punish the workers. Is that it? Let's just call it what it is.
Yep. We need to CUT spending. We NEED to cut the military. How do we make them do that? NEITHER side wants to touch it with a ten foot pole because they've all clearly been bought and paid for.
Originally Posted by Beentheredonethat
Those that worked, earned money and invested it? The have more money?
Than what? Than you think they should have?
Because those in office on BOTH sides do not want to cut the military you think they have been bought?
please move to another country...a socialist one. go. be happy.
And take a course in math.
Ummmm...I never said punish anyone that works...I am one of those not interested in raising taxes on anyone that is hard working.
That point seems to escape you...often.
LMH, you are a good soul,,,, I would not have the patience!
Originally Posted by LMH
LMH--You get so petty. No matter what, you always start the snide remarks, then get really mad when I put it back in your own words. You need to learn basic math.
There is nothing wrong with capital gains, but when it's used to help destroy this country because it's abused, it's a big problem.
Are you seriously thinking those who profit from big military don't stake out every single Congressman? Get real.
Please move to an aristocratic country that only likes YOUR religion so you can be happy about how you deserve it all, and those lower classes who are so poor deserve it.
Math--5% loss of income times per billions of dollars made. It's called multiplication. It's a tad harder than adding.
Still NO solutions from you. Just complaining.
Oh dear. YOU lied about me saying "punish the rich," so when I mirrored what you said, you forgot?
You're one of those people with "magical math" where you lower taxes, lower costs and the debt gets resolved!
The point seems to escape you . . often.
Hehehe,, I am quite entertained,, thanks for the funny reading!
The Economic Effects of Capital Gains Taxation
Overall, capital gains tax revenues have been a fairly small, but not trivial, source of government revenue. Since 1954, revenue from the capital gains tax as a share of total income tax revenue has averaged 5.2%. It reached a peak of 12.8% in 1986 and a low of 2.0% in 1957. Nonetheless, the 2007 capital gains tax revenue of $123 billion was equal to 75% of the FY2007 budget deficit.
About 18% of total long-term capital gains were received by taxpayers in the bottom 80% of the income distribution. Taxpayers in the top 20% received about 82% of total long-term capital gains and taxpayers in the richest 5% received 68% of total capital gains in 2004.
Congress Considers Changing Tax Treatment of Capital Gains
Print Email Reprints
191 WASHINGTON, D.C. (SEPTEMBER 21, 2012)
BY MICHAEL COHN
Congress’s two tax-writing committees, the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, held a joint hearing Thursday to discuss capital gains taxes and how they might be reformed.
Like what you see? Click here to sign up for Accounting Today's daily newsletter to get the latest news and behind the scenes commentary you won't find anywhere else.
Currently capital gains are taxed at a maximum of 15 percent, compared to the top rate of 35 percent on ordinary income. Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., said the process of reforming the nation’s tax system must include a comprehensive review of the rates on capital gains to find a level that sparks broad-based growth, creates jobs and strengthens the economy.
He added that the reform process needs to consider the capital gains rate in conjunction with those on individual wage income, corporate income and dividends. Baucus also noted that many high-income earners have a lower effective tax rate than middle class families, because the capital gains tax rates are lower than those on wages.
“Our entire tax code—including its treatment of capital gains—needs to be rebuilt for the 21st century economy. We need a system focused on broad-based economic growth and jobs,” Baucus said. “In order to get tax reform done, we’ll need members of both parties and both chambers willing to tackle the tough issues.”
At Thursday’s hearing, Baucus questioned whether it is feasible to lower wage income tax rates substantially without an increase in the capital gains rate to maintain revenue. He also noted the fact that capital gains taxes are a major driver of the tax code’s complexity. Experts say about half the code—more than 20,000 pages— exists solely to address capital gains. Baucus said because of that complexity, and because the capital gains rate is lower than the standard income tax rate, many people try to skirt their tax responsibilities and game the system.
“The taxation of capital gains is one of the most widely discussed areas of our individual tax system, and it needs to be reviewed as part of comprehensive tax reform,” said Ways and Means chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., in a statement. “With both the Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee actively pursuing tax reform, it will be critical for Congress’s two tax-writing panels to continue working closely together.”
Rep. Kenny Marchant, R-Texas, noted, "The investors I've talked to, at 15 percent, they do not spend any time or money on tax avoidance, but they say there is a rate at which they will avoid the tax."
"Everyone wants reform as long as it doesn't affect them," said Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.
Leonard Burman of Syracuse University testified that capital gains ought to be treated much like ordinary income. “How should capital gains be taxed?” he said in his prepared testimony. “Under an income tax, the answer is that capital gains should be taxed in full as they are earned, not when realized. Capital gains are income, not really different in substance from interest, rents, and royalties: other kinds of capital income that are taxed as ordinary income. Under the pure comprehensive income tax, corporate income would be allocated to shareholders and taxed as ordinary income, in the same way that S-corporations and partnerships are taxed.
"Obviously we don't tax capital gains or corporations that way," Burman added. "Capital gains are taxed only when realized, and gains on assets held for at least a year are generally taxed at a lower rate than other income. Capital gains on assets held until death or donated to charity, however, are never subject to income tax. And corporations are subject to a separate tax that is not integrated with the individual income tax. The consequence is that some corporate income may be subject to two layers of tax: the corporate income tax plus the individual income tax on capital gains and dividends.” Burman recommended that Congress should look into the legislation on 1031 exchanges to stop them from being misused.
Dr. Lawrence Lindsey of the Lindsey Group noted the complexity of the issue. “This is a very complicated issue, but in the interest of time, there are three themes that are critical,” he said. “First, the key to escaping the economic and fiscal morass in which we now find ourselves is to make America the best place in the world to invest, start a business, and create jobs. This involves a focus on the overall rate of taxation of both capital and entrepreneurship, and not on the capital gains tax rate in isolation. Second, there is a strong relationship between the rate of taxation and the level of the economic activity being taxed, and therefore on the revenue collected from such a tax. This relationship is not as strong as some believe, but it is far stronger than that implied by static revenue models.
"Moreover, the focus should not be on the revenue-maximizing tax rate, but on the additional economic burden created for each dollar of revenue collected. This means that the optimal rate of taxation is well below the revenue-maximizing level," Lindsey added. "Third, the revenue collected from capital gains taxation depends not only on the capital gains tax rate, but on the tax rate on ordinary income as well. A large differential between these rates skews the design of investment and financing just as the current huge differential between the taxation of debt and equity. These are important issues in designing the taxation of capital.”
David Verrill, chairman of the Angel Capital Association and managing director of Hub Angel Investment Group, noted that taxing capital gains at ordinary income rates could discourage investment in startup companies by angel investors, who would change their behavior if the tax rates changed. “An increase in capital gains rates will reduce angel investment in promising, job-creating companies at the very time our country needs to create jobs,” he said. “It would be like taking our foot off the gas pedal at the very time when we are trying to get our economy moving faster.”
William Stanfill, a general partner at Montegra Capital Income Fund, argued against continuing the capital gains tax rates. “The preferential tax rates for capital gains and dividends are simply a windfall for wealthy investors,” he said. “In my view this special tax treatment is neither fair nor equitable or available to any other professional endeavor. After all, a gifted teacher who is inspiring and challenging our children and enriching human capital gets no such special treatment. Some predict that firms will locate overseas, taking jobs and tax revenue out of the country.
"My firm is too small to play in the international field—the learning curve is too steep and the costs are too high," Stanfill added. "And because we believe in seed investing, we’ve always found sufficient deals in our own backyard. Further, my accountant advises me that if we did move our fund offshore, as a U.S. citizen, I am still subject to U.S. tax on my income.”
Investors Gorged as U.S. Debt Ballooned
MORE IN MARKETS »
By DAVID WEIDNER
Individual investors aren't usually equated with powerful Washington, D.C., special interests like the National Rifle Association, labor unions, big oil and the Sierra Club.
But during the past two decades, investors probably have been treated better than all those other groups combined. The reason: They are beneficiaries of a tax policy that looks like Olive Garden's "never-ending pasta bowl."
Since 1996, the capital-gains tax rate, the primary way of taxing investment income, has been chipped away. The tax rate is just 15% now, and the effective tax rate dipped below 14% at times in the past decade.
Compare that with the 35% rate paid by Americans with the highest incomes and 25% for most middle-class Americans.
It's true that the reason for this obvious inequality is the U.S. government wants to encourage investment through lower taxes.
And it should.
But lower capital-gains rates haven't been as balanced across the income spectrum as hoped. They actually have fueled wider income disparity.
Just one out of every seven taxpayers, or 17.7 million of 138.3 million, actually pays taxes on investment income, according to the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. Of those, just 4.6 million report gains from mutual funds. Stocks in retirement plans aren't subject to the tax.
Less than half of those paying capital-gains taxes had moderate to low incomes. Yet taxpayers in the top 20% claimed 92% of all capital gains, while the top 3% of incomes reported 83% of all capital gains. Capital gains were 40% of income for those claiming adjusted gross income of at least $1 million.
The irrefutable conclusion from these numbers: Wealthy Americans are the overwhelming beneficiaries of the lower tax rate on investing. It skews their tax bills so much that Americans with annual incomes of $50,000 to $70,000 pay an effective overall income-tax rate of about 15%, while those making more than $1 million with two-thirds coming from investments pay 12% or less.
And all of that hoped-for benefit to the economy? There is "no evidence" linking aggregate economic performance to capital-gains rates, according to tax economist Joel Slemrod of the University of Michigan and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Leonard Burman, a tax-policy professor at Syracuse University, found no correlation between capital-gains rates and economic cycles.
Moreover, the recent decade of exceedingly low capital-gains rates has come during an unusually volatile period in the markets. So there is little, if any, evidence that the rates actually helped increase the value of companies.
What capital-gains tax cuts have done is balloon the U.S. debt. From 2003 to 2009, taxpayers reported $4 trillion in capital gains and paid $587 billion in taxes, a rate of less than 15%. If the effective rate had remained close to 22%, the U.S. government would have collected an additional $276 billion during the decade.
It is only recently that capital gains have been taxed below 20%, most notably with the Bush tax cuts in 2003 that set them at their current rate. During the Clinton administration, the effective capital-gains rate hit about 25% in 1996, and the government showed a $69.2 billion surplus two years later.
Moreover, Mr. Bush cut the rate on long-term capital gains to 0% for the two lowest income-tax brackets. Dividend income taxed as ordinary income was redefined as capital gains.
Simply raising the capital-gains rate for the top 1% of incomes would add $36 billion in revenue during the next decade. Such a change would be a good fiscal start and a statement about what we value.
Investing, it has been said, is built around the idea that money, or "capital," works for you. The reality is that we value real labor—the capital gained from wages—more than investment capital, because the capital gained from wages is directly aligned with something produced, such as a good or service.
Ask yourself if the money made working all day as a nurse, teacher or construction worker should be taxed at the same rate as the money made buying or selling a stock, or even worse, options and other derivatives without an obvious "social benefit."
Even if you believe capital gained from labor and investment are equal, then it would have to follow that they should be taxed at the same rate. Again, we give an advantage—a 15% rate—to investors. People with adjusted gross incomes of $44,000 are taxed at 25%.
The supposed "risk" that investments may falter is actually offset by the fact you can claim the losses as a tax deduction and carry forward those losses if they exceed annual limits.
As investors, we would all like to see investment encouraged. But we have had the field tilted in our favor for too long. And the only thing we've got to show for it is a widening gap between the rich and poor—and a ballooning federal deficit.
That's why the Bowles-Simpson deficit-reduction commission proposed eliminating the capital-gains rate in favor of taxing investment income as ordinary income. It's why our spiritual leader, billionaire Warren Buffett, has endorsed the same idea.
For the past decade, the country has given to investors. Now, it's time to return the favor.
Crickets? Stunned silence to facts? Refusal to look at facts with numbers? Too many big words? I did bold and underline the main ideas to make it easier.
Good lord BTDT, your facts are blearing my vision...
Girl, you are on overload with the likes on this thread. Facts always make the right wing retreat....I wonder if they are checking what Faux News has to say....
How about a national luxury tax?
That has been tried, and quickly repealed as the wealthy bought their fur coats and yachts abroad.
Originally Posted by alterhorse
But we make our own problems. All of these tax problems are self imposed. We could have a lower capital gains tax for everyone whose annual income is below a certain amount. Let's say under $100,000 everybody pays ZERO capital gains to encourage saving for retirement. They are going to need it, because social security will not be enough for subsistence. Then between $100,000 to $500,000 everyone pays 15% and above $500,000 they pay 25%. It could be even more incremental to avoid those steep step increases.
Another self made problem is taxing small businesses as individuals. When you want to tax people higher who make over $250,000 the conservatives correctly shout--"but those are our job creators, those are our entrepreneurs." Fine, then have a higher tax for people like CEOs who have a paycheck of over $250, 000 or whatever, then a lower tax for business owner income and for small businesses that employ at least one other person.
Of course, small business owners are the ones who are notorious for not reporting all of their income anyway. But let's ignore that for the moment.
One of the other blatant unfairnesses is to take a number, such as $250,000 and say that people earning that should be taxed at a higher rate. One of the problems with that is that if you live in New York City or in other very expensive places, $250,000 does not go anywhere near as far as it would in say, Arkansas.
Sure. That is why the republicans have vowed, since the day Obama was elected, to do everything possible to see that he fails. Like a bunch of petulant little babies who have had their toys taken away.
Originally Posted by redalter
BTDT, you can not come on here and call names and then report someone because they say something you do not like. You are about the only one I have seen who is pretty immature in how you are going about your arguments.
Originally Posted by Beentheredonethat
How disrespectful. You are a teacher? With access to children? Are you so biased with them? I simply can not imagine you teaching them to examine and sift through information in a non-biased, logical way and if I were a parent, despite my alignment with many of your political views, I would not be happy.
Originally Posted by Beentheredonethat
I happen to agree with much of what you say although not with the way you say it and I hope I am not so one sided, but really, the above is not at all necessary. If I were someone who was diametrically opposed to your views, the above behaviors would sure not do anything to open my mind. You are behaving in a way that is strongly counterproductive.