|
Post by helens on Mar 2, 2012 17:06:18 GMT -5
Of course they pay a higher rate if you pool the POOR in with everyone, since the POOR pay NOTHING at all, and are then added in.
What we are comparing the rich's taxes to are the rest of us who DO pay taxes. Why should they pay more? Why aren't the poor, who pay nothing, lumped in with the RICH who pay nothing? 1500 millionaires (people who MADE over $1 million dollars a year) paid 0 taxes in 2009. Not one penny. So why aren't the poor lumped in with those millionaires when doing this calculation? THEN we see who pays the taxes... the MIDDLE CLASS.
WRONG. Investment income PRINCIPLE was taxed. The DIVIDEND income is NEW PROFIT.
That's like saying, I bought rocks, I bought a rock machine, and I cut rocks. Sold the slabs at a profit. I paid taxes with the money I bought the original rocks from, so I owe no taxes for the profit I made selling the slabs. Try telling the IRS that and see if they let you out of paying taxes on your PROFIT.
Well that's the logic you are trying to use here on the double taxation. You do NOT pay taxes AGAIN on your PRINCIPLE. ONLY the money you PROFITED after MINUSING the money you invested.
Same exact thing for buying a house. I pay X dollars for a house. 10 years later I sell the house for X + Y profit. I get taxed on Y profit, not the original X. That tax is OK for me and you to pay, but same exact principle means the rich are DOUBLE TAXED? Huh?
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Mar 2, 2012 17:22:23 GMT -5
Not disputing the principle issue, What I am driving at is the income derived from investments (income earned from investing money that has already been taxed) is taxed at a lower rate. So that is why some rich folks pay less taxes. If you have saved enough money to live off investment income and do not draw regular wages, you pay less taxes.
I am all for doing away with loopholes and such, but if you tax investments at as high of a rate as regular earned income, there is not much incentive for folks to invest their money. I hardly think that would help the economy much.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Mar 2, 2012 18:01:32 GMT -5
Why should they be taxed at a lower rate on dividend PROFIT, when in fact every small business in the nation is fully taxed on their PROFIT?
And since I trade some stocks, guess who's going to get nailed with more taxes? ME. I'm OK with that, because I make poop compared to the millionaires, and frankly, why SHOULD my trading earnings pay less taxes than YOUR hard earned profits? You think I work harder than you do, that I deserve a break you don't get?
Incentives for investing money is the same everywhere... to make more money. You invest in rocks to profit selling slabs and cabs. You invest money in stocks and funds and bonds to profit the dividends/raise in price/interest so you will have more later. What more incentive would you need to make money than to make money?
But the issue here is not to do away with capital gains. The issue here is that if your INCOME is over X amount, your loopholes get taken away til you pay a 28% base IF you PROFIT more than $1 million dollars a year. That's the ONLY issue.
If tomorrow, a Republican candidate says they are willing to do that, I'm voting Republican. I am not attached to Obama, I'm attached to balancing the budget, and reviving our economy.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Mar 2, 2012 22:13:05 GMT -5
Grey, I only addressed part of your original note. About this part: "The latest IRS figures are a few years older — and limited to federal income taxes — but show much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes, according to the IRS. Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3 percent." Those figures do not jive with either my personal experience, anyone I know's experience, or anything I've read's experience. And maybe that's the problem. I'm not reading what you're reading, or I read it and discounted it because, hey, I pick and choose what I want to read just like everyone else. Maybe I just missed it. The statistic I have seen is that the rich pay on average 22%, and the super rich pay 18% or LESS. Warren Buffet said: www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.htmlBut lets assume that your figure for those making over $1 million dollars a year is true. That they are paying 24.4% already, while the rest of us pay far far less. If that's the case, what's the objection to making it a minimum 28%? We're talking 3%, which for every $100 is $3. If you make a million dollars a year, you can't afford $3 per $100 to prevent taking SS from the elderly? So what exactly is the problem if what you say is true? Why are the Republicans in Congress FIGHTING tooth and nail to save that $3 per hundred? I can only think of one reason... it's not true, and it's a WHOLE LOT more than $3. Warren Buffett says it's a whole LOT more than $3 per hundred, and all he has to do is pick up his income tax filing to see that, and told us so. All these articles defending the rich... I am curious why ANOTHER super rich guy doesn't do a Warren Buffett and come out calling him a liar, starting with "*I* pay 25% income tax, and the middle class only pays 15%!!" ... because they don't? Mitt Romney paid less than 14% taxes. Less than 14% on 42 MILLION DOLLARS. abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/mitt-romney-made-42-million-paid-14-percent/story?id=15423615#.T1GJ8fEgehASo, we don't get our hands on too many rich people's income tax statements. But we know about Warren Buffett, and we know about Mitt Romney. Neither paid 24.4%. I have never one time seen one report of a single rich guy paying 24%. Can you name ONE? So if that number is accurate.. where are these rich people who pay it? And... if people like Mitt Romney are paying LESS than 14% income tax... ANOTHER millionaire somewhere must be paying 35% to get that 'average' down to 24.4% right? I think there's something wrong with that figure. But I hope you are right, because if it's true, Republican Congressmen can see that setting a 28% minimum on 1 million dollar plus incomes is barely raising anyone's taxes at all, and should be perfectly OK, since at least some of them are paying way more than 24.4% now to offset Romney's free tax ride. Why are they still fighting then? That doesn't seem odd?
|
|
|
Post by Rockoonz on Mar 3, 2012 1:01:58 GMT -5
Helen, you obviously have a lot of time on your hands to cherry pick the internet for "facts". I won't dispute them since you wouldn't believe the truth anyway. The problem is not the level of taxation. Tax more and they will spend more, simple as that. The problem is the SPENDING We don't need deficit reduction, we need debt reduction
Lee
|
|
|
Post by helens on Mar 3, 2012 1:42:54 GMT -5
Warren Buffett has a great solution for that: "The renowned investor told CNBC his plan. I could end the deficit in five minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for reelection ... [T]hey're trying to use the incentive now that we're going to blow your brains out, America, in terms of your debt-worthiness over time ... A more effective threat would be just to say, 'If you guys can't get it done, we'll get some other guys to get it done.'" Since Congress won't go for Warren Buffett's plan, how would YOU fix the deficit Lee? Here's a NYT puzzle game for people to see what they'd cut themselves. Course, they don't explain the repercussions of each cut: www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html Keep in mind that for each job lost, a job has to be created in the private sector, OR that person's going to end up on the public dole somehow, doing nothing and costing us all more.
|
|
damammy
has rocks in the head
Member since January 2009
Posts: 697
|
Post by damammy on Mar 3, 2012 1:49:18 GMT -5
I don't vote party and play that stupid assed game GOD gave you a brain to use. When you vote you should have found out as much as possible about ALL the people running. take your right to vote very serious. a lot of people died fighting for the for the freedom. I am thankful I have the right to vote and try to use that right as Intelligent as I can. that is my duty. I'll get off my soap box now. Donna
|
|