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.
The problem here is that CEO's income does not typically come primarily from salary. It comes from stock. Hence the drive for short term profits over long term, more fiscally responsible planning. So, like the Mitt's of this world, they do not pay income tax on the majority of their income.
The CEO of the company I work for, I think his salary is 600k or around there. I believe last year he received options valued around 14 million. I don't think he will be too upset if the tax rate on his 600k goes up.
You take a good long hard look at health care costs, for one thing. My mother died in 2001, after six miserable months in a nursing home, that costs Medicaid around $125,000 from start to finish. She had a bunch of stuff wrong, was 87, and had cancer. I cam home from the barn to find her dizzy and dehydrated, so off to the ER we went. She never came home. I tried to talk to her doctors about comfort care, an suggested that we tell her it was time to have her family come and say good-by. I got a lot of sideways 'hummmm' looks from them. Two years later my 90 year old aunt, also with multiple problems, started a cascade of events; the same result ensued. Again, Medicaid spent around 125,000 on her. I loved both those feisty old women a lot, but I wished they had been allowed to die in peace. How many old women and men have this happen to them? Why do we spend such a big amount of money on a person who is terminal and miserable?
Ah, I was going to leave it. Sketcher. You need to actually read the posts and the forum rules and not side with the unending rudeness. When you would like to post your profession, marital status, kids, so I can guess what kind of person you are by making such assumptions, then we're all good.
Posters continual made fun of actual facts and name-called, when responded in the same manner, made accusations, and when I posted facts that I was name-called for, no response, as usual.
ACP--Absolutely this is a very good, but difficult issue to look at. Healthcare costs are huge, and something like 80% of them are end of life care when we try to unnaturally, and often cruelly, extend life. We do horribly cruel things to people we would never let our animals suffer through because . . . I don't know why. Many reasons.
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.
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.
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.
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.