Taxing the rich

[InRareForm]

http://www.taxanalysts.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/JSCT-959NAC?OpenDocument#.US0abUNGnps.twitter

[Halberto]

"But those gains have already been taxed!"

[Nbadan]

"You didn't build that"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In 1965, when the US had pulled itself out of the massive debt it had accrued in WW2, the highest tax bracket was taxed 70%. The men who had fought and won WW2 were this country's leaders and the first of their children were coming into their majority.

50 years later, as the last of those children are retiring and no longer having income to tax, the highest tax bracket is taxed half of what it was then, 35%.

A capital gains tax makes sense but I think a wealth tax is in order.

[Wild Cobra]

The marginal rate for the rich didn't matter. We had more tax payers per capita.

In 1965, the standard deduction was the greater of 10% of one's W2 income, or $200 + $100 per exemption. Then exemptions were $600 each. There was very little to figure from here without itemized deductions. There was no earned income credit, child credits, etc. In the end, most wage earners paid taxes.

The 25% point on the tax table is at $6000. 28% at $8k, 36% at $12k, 39% at $14k. It hits 70% $100k. Now in 2012 dollars, these would be 7.29 times greater.

A family of four making $75k in 2012 would pay $4,319 in federal income tax. Less if they have interest deductions, itemize, etc. Now that same $75k is $10,288 in 1965. $10,288 would be taxed at $1,163, or $8,480 in 2012 dollars. Almost double.

A family of four making $45k in 2012 would pay nothing. This family in 1965, making $6,173, would pay $477 in federal taxes. The equivalent of $3,474 in 2012.

This doesn't have anything to do with the rich. There aren't enough of them to make but a minor difference. We simply aren't taxing enough people today. Politicians are buying your vote by promising lower taxes to people who already don't pay their fair share.

[Wild Cobra]

I miss the simple days of filling out tax forms.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/1965form1040A67pct_zpse4e05623.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

My first filing year:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/19751040A_zps8f89bae8.jpg

[boutons_deux]

"There aren't enough of them to make but a minor difference"

bullshit. here's graph for you to deny:

http://www.ncpa.org/images/2350.gif



in 2009, according to the CBO [see Figure I]
:


The middle 20 percent of income earners paid just 9 percent of federal taxes, less than two-thirds their share of income.
By contrast, the top 1 percent alone paid over 22 percent of all federal taxes, while earning 13 percent of the income.
And the top 20 percent of earners paid nearly 70 percent of all federal taxes, while earning 50 percent of the income.





There was also a wide disparity in the tax rates paid by low-, middle- and high-income taxpayers in 2009 [see Figure II]:



The bottom 20 percent paid an average federal tax rate of 1 percent.
The middle 20 percent paid an average federal tax rate of 11.1 percent.
However, the top 1 percent paid an average federal tax rate of 29 percent.


http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba770#sthash.rtunSayD.dpuf (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba770#sthash.rtunSayD.dpuf)
So WC's favorite tax policy propaganda of taking more skin off the bottom 80%, "broadening the base", would only put the suffering 80% into deeper pain without raising significant revenue compared to what the top 20% pays, because the top 20% sucks in such a huge %age of total income, much of if from scamming, fee-ing, over-charging the 80%.

Even after lowering to 15% capital gains, even after $Ts not paid in estate taxes, even after all of Bishop Gecko's felony tax evasions, the top 20% still pays 70% of national tax bill.

btw, St Ronnie, patron saint of the VRWC, as well has shifing US from "tax and spend" to "borrow and spend", he really got the deficit ball rolling by cutting taxes on the top (most of the tax income) while raising tax on the 80%. And Repug/VRWC policies of enriching/protecting the top will fucking the bottom, and their wars are wealth redistribution to the top, are the primary reason for the national deficit.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Historical_Mariginal_Tax_Rate_for_Highest_and_Lowe st_Income_Earners.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

Boutons.

How many of the top 1% do you think will be affected by income tax changes? Isn't most of their income taxed differently?

Now the middle class. Back to the 60's and 70's way of doing taxes, they would pay almost double what they currently do.

FYI.

I'm in the top 10%.

I would pay 16% more in taxes going by the 1965 form rather than my 2012 form, adjusted for 2012 dollars. Like anyone, i don't like the idea, but if everyone pays their fair share... I'm OK with it.

I think the thing that is hurting our revenue problem the most, is the $1,000 child tax credit. We went decades, just fine without it. With it, we have so many more people with no end of year tax liability, and almost everyone else with $1,000 less per child.

How many dependent children are in the USA? There is probably 30% of the population that classes as dependent children. (25.7% under 18 yrs old and 9.6% 18-24 yrs) This is $93 billion if revenue not seen.

[LnGrrrR]

Earning power is much less than it used to be though. Many more families have dual incomes today than in the 60's/70's.

[Wild Cobra]

Earning power is much less than it used to be though. Many more families have dual incomes today than in the 60's/70's.
So...

Does that mean people shouldn't pay a fair share in taxes?

[LnGrrrR]

So...

Does that mean people shouldn't pay a fair share in taxes?

You act as if there's an objective consensus on what's "fair". Additionally, you imply that making taxes "fair" should be the ultimate goal of tax policy. Other goals could be better mobility, higher GDP, etc etc.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

A 15% cap gains tax is about as far away from fair as it gets.

[Wild Cobra]

You act as if there's an objective consensus on what's "fair". Additionally, you imply that making taxes "fair" should be the ultimate goal of tax policy. Other goals could be better mobility, higher GDP, etc etc.
I have a problem with over the years, less and less people helping to support the government expenses. It gets worse in that these people now expect to be entitled.

Fuck that, we don't have enough revenue to redistribute.

[boutons_deux]

Boutons.

How many of the top 1% do you think will be affected by income tax changes? Isn't most of their income taxed differently?

I think the thing that is hurting our revenue problem the most, is the $1,000 child tax credit. We went decades, just fine without it. With it, we have so many more people with no end of year tax liability, and almost everyone else with $1,000 less per child.

How many dependent children are in the USA? There is probably 30% of the population that classes as dependent children. (25.7% under 18 yrs old and 9.6% 18-24 yrs) This is $93 billion if revenue not seen.

income tax for me is taxes on ALL income.

Capital gains tax should be abolished.

dubya's estate tax should be rolled back. It costs $Ts, so far.

Kill the "carried interest" ripoff.

tax ALL financial transactions.

Policy Basics: The Child Tax Credit


http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//policybasics-eitc-f2.jpg

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2989

[DarrinS]

I agree that Obama's friends can afford to pay more.

[LnGrrrR]

I have a problem with over the years, less and less people helping to support the government expenses. It gets worse in that these people now expect to be entitled.

Fuck that, we don't have enough revenue to redistribute.

Another way to look at it would be the amount of earnings one makes relative to the rest of the nation. There have been numerous studies showing that the rich own more and more of the country's wealth in terms of percentages. Couldn't one argue that, since they have been earning more and more relative to middle and low income workers (whose wages have been stagnant), that their tax burden should increase slightly to make up for it?

[Spurminator]

I have a problem with over the years, less and less people helping to support the government expenses. It gets worse in that these people now expect to be entitled.

Fuck that, we don't have enough revenue to redistribute.

Government expenses are supported only by income tax?

[Spurminator]

I would bet that much more wealth is redistributed through the stock market via our 401K's than through entitlements.

[LnGrrrR]

Also WC, if you taxed the middle and lower classes more heavily, wouldn't that greatly depress our economy? The lower income levels would have less money to spend on the economy, and that tax money would go right to the government. But you don't want to increase the size of government, do you? Also, do you think the government would spend that money as efficiently as the families who paid those taxes would?

[leemajors]

Also WC, if you taxed the middle and lower classes more heavily, wouldn't that greatly depress our economy? The lower income levels would have less money to spend on the economy, and that tax money would go right to the government. But you don't want to increase the size of government, do you? Also, do you think the government would spend that money as efficiently as the families who paid those taxes would?

WC has never been terribly interested in making sense.

[DarrinS]

I would bet that much more wealth is redistributed through the stock market via our 401K's than through entitlements.

Wah?

[PublicOption]

slowly,with a recovering economy and growing tax base the deficit will decline IT ALWAYS DOES.

Talking about the deficit SO MUCH is a way the rich people can trick the middle class into saving them(the rich people) from paying more taxes......Note to middle class.....DON'T FALL FOR IT.

[boutons_deux]

slowly,with a recovering economy and growing tax base the deficit will decline IT ALWAYS DOES.

Talking about the deficit SO MUCH is a way the rich people can trick the middle class into saving them(the rich people) from paying more taxes......Note to middle class.....DON'T FALL FOR IT.

Wall St/Goldman scumbag Pete Peterson has spent $500M of his own to fund the VRWC anti-deficit strategy, going back 35 years. They ain't doing it for the good of the country or the 99%.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Seeing people argue about marginal rates on regular income is frustrating and shows how little most Americans know about our tax code.

There's a mathematical reality neither the Republicans nor the Democrats in Washington want to accept that the only way a country can have a strong middle class that doesn't weaken over time is with an extremely progressive tax system that actually does "redistribute" wealth. The tax ideas in this country right now involving increased regular income tax/increased sales tax/etc. accomplish absolutely nothing and are worthless talking points Obama sanctimoniously harps on to make middle class and poor Americans think he really wants to increase the rich's tax burden. For that matter, the Republicans who really think Obama's goal is to heavily tax the rich and make them pay a lot more is even more stupid.

The sales tax wealthy people pay is meaningless as they only spend a tiny portion of their total income (sales tax is one of the most regressive taxes there is), and the regular income tax wealthy people pay is meaningless as their regular income is a small portion of their total income. Both of those are drops in the bucket for them.

The two really big problems are cap gains and estate taxes. Capital gains should be taxed as regular income and the way people get to shelter their cap gains income needs to change. The tax holidays people get where they can convert their IRA into a Roth IRA when Roth IRAs were meant to only have a max $5,000 annual contribution are a complete joke and they only benefit the absolute wealthiest. The estate tax is also a joke because of how easy it is for estate planners to lower the tax value of people's estates. A good estate planner can take an estate worth $100,000,000 and reduce its tax value to under the $5,000,000 exception. Until this country starts taxing the hell out of cap gains and chopping high net worth estates in half every time someone dies, the tax code will be completely fucked.

[boutons_deux]

" Until this country starts taxing the hell out of cap gains and chopping high net worth estates in half every time someone dies, the tax code will be completely fucked."

ain't gonna happen. As Warren Buffet said, There Is A Class War, and My Class Won.

There's no way to defeat the VRWC/1%.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

" Until this country starts taxing the hell out of cap gains and chopping high net worth estates in half every time someone dies, the tax code will be completely fucked."

ain't gonna happen. As Warren Buffet said, There Is A Class War, and My Class Won.

There's no way to defeat the VRWC/1%.



I'm not saying it's going to happen, in fact my post implied several times it's not going to happen.

The main point of my post is that all these supposedly bold "tax reform" ideas that don't touch the cap gains or estate tax will accomplish nothing.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The marginal rate for the rich didn't matter. We had more tax payers per capita.

In 1965, the standard deduction was the greater of 10% of one's W2 income, or $200 + $100 per exemption. Then exemptions were $600 each. There was very little to figure from here without itemized deductions. There was no earned income credit, child credits, etc. In the end, most wage earners paid taxes.

The 25% point on the tax table is at $6000. 28% at $8k, 36% at $12k, 39% at $14k. It hits 70% $100k. Now in 2012 dollars, these would be 7.29 times greater.

A family of four making $75k in 2012 would pay $4,319 in federal income tax. Less if they have interest deductions, itemize, etc. Now that same $75k is $10,288 in 1965. $10,288 would be taxed at $1,163, or $8,480 in 2012 dollars. Almost double.

A family of four making $45k in 2012 would pay nothing. This family in 1965, making $6,173, would pay $477 in federal taxes. The equivalent of $3,474 in 2012.

This doesn't have anything to do with the rich. There aren't enough of them to make but a minor difference. We simply aren't taxing enough people today. Politicians are buying your vote by promising lower taxes to people who already don't pay their fair share.

As I have told you before. I do not really give a shit about your unsourced napkin math. You have no credibility.

Also do not speak to what I am buying and not buying. For myself, I think that taxes need to be raised on all Americans and a wealth tax needs to be implemented. The primary point I was making is that in 1965, we had men writing responsible fiscal policy.

[Wild Cobra]

I agree that Obama's friends can afford to pay more.

Sure. So can families. Phase out the $1,000 per child tax credit.

[Drachen]

Sure. So can families. Phase out the $1,000 per child tax credit.

It is 500 this year.

[Wild Cobra]

It is 500 this year.
Good. Drastic in my opinion, but good. I think a good plan would be to reduce it by $200 a year. I believe slower changes are better than quick ones. Less shock on a system.

[clambake]

the good news is that wc isn't planning on having more kids!

[boutons_deux]

It is 500 this year.

Earned Income Tax Credit Amounts for Year 2012

The maximum earned income credit for 2012 is:


$5,891 with three or more qualifying children;
$5,236 with two qualifying children;
$3,169 with one qualifying child; and
$475 with no qualifying children.


Earned Income Tax Credit Amounts for Year 2011

The maximum earned income credit for 2011 is:


$5,751 with three or more qualifying children;
$5,112 with two qualifying children;
$3,094 with one qualifying child; and
$464 with no qualifying children.


To be eligible for EIC, both earned income and adjusted gross income (AGI) must each be less than the following amounts for 2012:



$45,060 ($50,270 married filing jointly) with 3 or more qualifying children
$41,952 ($47,162 married filing jointly) with 2 qualifying children;
$36,920 ($42,130 married filing jointly) with 1 qualifying child; or
$13,980 ($19,190 married filing jointly) with no qualifying children.


For 2011, earned income and AGI must be less than:


$43,998 ($49,078 married filing jointly) with 3 or more qualifying children
$40,964 ($46,044 married filing jointly) with 2 qualifying children;
$36,052 ($41,132 married filing jointly) with 1 qualifying child; or
$13,660 ($18,740 married filing jointly) with no qualifying children.


http://taxes.about.com/od/deductionscredits/qt/earnedincome.htm

[Wild Cobra]

Earned Income Tax Credit Amounts for Year 2012

The maximum earned income credit for 2012 is:


$5,891 with three or more qualifying children;
$5,236 with two qualifying children;
$3,169 with one qualifying child; and
$475 with no qualifying children.


Earned Income Tax Credit Amounts for Year 2011

The maximum earned income credit for 2011 is:


$5,751 with three or more qualifying children;
$5,112 with two qualifying children;
$3,094 with one qualifying child; and
$464 with no qualifying children.


To be eligible for EIC, both earned income and adjusted gross income (AGI) must each be less than the following amounts for 2012:



$45,060 ($50,270 married filing jointly) with 3 or more qualifying children
$41,952 ($47,162 married filing jointly) with 2 qualifying children;
$36,920 ($42,130 married filing jointly) with 1 qualifying child; or
$13,980 ($19,190 married filing jointly) with no qualifying children.


For 2011, earned income and AGI must be less than:


$43,998 ($49,078 married filing jointly) with 3 or more qualifying children
$40,964 ($46,044 married filing jointly) with 2 qualifying children;
$36,052 ($41,132 married filing jointly) with 1 qualifying child; or
$13,660 ($18,740 married filing jointly) with no qualifying children.


http://taxes.about.com/od/deductionscredits/qt/earnedincome.htm


Thus, the cycle of dependance continues.

The poor vote to legally steal other people's money. They vote for those promising to give them other people's money. The lawmakers redistribute this money to them, and the vicious cycle never ends.

[boutons_deux]

Thus, the cycle of dependance continues.

The poor vote to legally steal other people's money. They vote for those promising to give them other people's money. The lawmakers redistribute this money to them, and the vicious cycle never ends.

Your blind, fact-free ideology.

People with those EARNED INCOMES are almost all working poor that will very likely NEVER be anything other than working poor, and same for their kids due to upward mobility in the USA having declined in the past 3 or 4 decades. US upward mobility is now lower than almost all other industrial countries.

But you have no problem with the "cycle of dependency" of the MIC, delivering garbage like the $200M+/F-25, the Osprey, etc, etc.

[Wild Cobra]

We have the richest working poor in the world. We have people in poverty that are better off than average people in other nations. I'm tired of your indoctrinated tripe.

[boutons_deux]

We have the richest working poor in the world. We have people in poverty that are better off than average people in other nations. I'm tired of your indoctrinated tripe.

So you want to make them poorer? force them down to level of poverty in other countries? Now your "cost of living" as applies to state-education-spending/student doesn't apply per-country?

Like a true blind ideological extreme Randian right-winger, you concentrate on the poor 47% as THE problem while ignoring the real problem of the 1% fucking up the country, and making the poor poorer.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't want to make them poorer. I want them to stop taking from others. I want the entitlement mentality to end, and for people to take the pride to do better for themselves.

[boutons_deux]

I don't want to make them poorer. I want them to stop taking from others. I want the entitlement mentality to end, and for people to take the pride to do better for themselves.

again, your obsession with fucking over the poor mirrors exactly the Cat-Food austerity the 1% is trying to impose on the 47%.

You don't GAF about the 1% "taking from others" on the order of $Ts, exorbitant cell phone bills for shitty service, exorbitant bundled cable TV packages padded with dozens of pure garbage channels, exorbitant health insurance rates and absolute rip-off health care costs, the 1% operating the for-profit college scam, the payday loan sharking, etc, etc.

[Wild Cobra]

And I don't GAF about the irresponsible who think they are entitled to other people's money.

They are losers with a capital L.

[CosmicCowboy]

Seeing people argue about marginal rates on regular income is frustrating and shows how little most Americans know about our tax code.

There's a mathematical reality neither the Republicans nor the Democrats in Washington want to accept that the only way a country can have a strong middle class that doesn't weaken over time is with an extremely progressive tax system that actually does "redistribute" wealth. The tax ideas in this country right now involving increased regular income tax/increased sales tax/etc. accomplish absolutely nothing and are worthless talking points Obama sanctimoniously harps on to make middle class and poor Americans think he really wants to increase the rich's tax burden. For that matter, the Republicans who really think Obama's goal is to heavily tax the rich and make them pay a lot more is even more stupid.

The sales tax wealthy people pay is meaningless as they only spend a tiny portion of their total income (sales tax is one of the most regressive taxes there is), and the regular income tax wealthy people pay is meaningless as their regular income is a small portion of their total income. Both of those are drops in the bucket for them.

The two really big problems are cap gains and estate taxes. Capital gains should be taxed as regular income and the way people get to shelter their cap gains income needs to change. The tax holidays people get where they can convert their IRA into a Roth IRA when Roth IRAs were meant to only have a max $5,000 annual contribution are a complete joke and they only benefit the absolute wealthiest. The estate tax is also a joke because of how easy it is for estate planners to lower the tax value of people's estates. A good estate planner can take an estate worth $100,000,000 and reduce its tax value to under the $5,000,000 exception. Until this country starts taxing the hell out of cap gains and chopping high net worth estates in half every time someone dies, the tax code will be completely fucked.

Eliminating cap gains and the estate tax exemptions would destroy small business as we know it. It completely kills any incentive to invest your savings in a business.

[LnGrrrR]

Eliminating cap gains and the estate tax exemptions would destroy small business as we know it. It completely kills any incentive to invest your savings in a business.

Couldn't we then put a cap on the cap? How about limit the amount one business could receive on capital gains, with a sliding scale based on the percentage of operations actually located in the US?

[LnGrrrR]

Sure. So can families. Phase out the $1,000 per child tax credit.

WC, I think you missed this question.


Also WC, if you taxed the middle and lower classes more heavily, wouldn't that greatly depress our economy? The lower income levels would have less money to spend on the economy, and that tax money would go right to the government. But you don't want to increase the size of government, do you? Also, do you think the government would spend that money as efficiently as the families who paid those taxes would?

[Wild Cobra]

Also WC, if you taxed the middle and lower classes more heavily, wouldn't that greatly depress our economy? The lower income levels would have less money to spend on the economy, and that tax money would go right to the government. But you don't want to increase the size of government, do you? Also, do you think the government would spend that money as efficiently as the families who paid those taxes would?

My point is a matter of principle. There isn't enough more revenue to by taxing the rich. If the poor and middle class think the government needs more revenue, then it need to come from them as well.

[boutons_deux]

"There isn't enough more revenue to by taxing the rich"

You Lie

Even after Regug tax cuts, tax avoidance, tax evasion, etc, etc, the top 20% pay 70% of total incomes taxes because of their incomes vastly, vastly, VASTLY surpass the income of the 80%.

[CosmicCowboy]

Eliminating the cap gains tax would also destroy the real estate market.

Example:

Lets say you invested $500,000 in a commercial property in 1980.

Lets say you paid your property taxes every year and then sold the property this year for 1.4 million.

You just made out like a bandit, didn't you?

uhhhh nope. You just lost your ass.

According to the IRS, investment "profit" is not indexed to inflation.

According to the IRS you just had a $900,000 "profit" on your investment that you now owe taxes on. Even at the "low" cap gains rate you guys are bitching about you would owe 20% (because you "made" more than $400,000 that year plus another 3.8% for Obamacare, so you would owe $214,200 in tax on your "profit". Tax it as ordinary income and you would owe $400,000+.

The only problem with this is there was really no profit at all. Even ignoring all the local property taxes paid over the years that 1.4 million in 2013 had EXACTLY THE SAME BUYING POWER as that $500,000 invested in 1980 after inflation.

Fuck you Boutons you ignorant piece of shit.

[boutons_deux]

Eliminating the cap gains tax would also destroy the real estate market.

You Lie

America built MILLIONS and MILLIONS of new homes and commercial buildings with capital gains rate up to double today's 15% for decades.

http://www.cch.com/wbot2012/029CapitalGains.asp

[Th'Pusher]

Eliminating the cap gains tax would also destroy the real estate market.

Example:

Lets say you invested $500,000 in a commercial property in 1980.

Lets say you paid your property taxes every year and then sold the property this year for 1.4 million.

You just made out like a bandit, didn't you?

uhhhh nope. You just lost your ass.

According to the IRS, investment "profit" is not indexed to inflation.

According to the IRS you just had a $900,000 "profit" on your investment that you now owe taxes on. Even at the "low" cap gains rate you guys are bitching about you would owe 20% (because you "made" more than $400,000 that year plus another 3.8% for Obamacare, so you would owe $214,200 in tax on your "profit". Tax it as ordinary income and you would owe $400,000+.

The only problem with this is there was really no profit at all. Even ignoring all the local property taxes paid over the years that 1.4 million in 2013 had EXACTLY THE SAME BUYING POWER as that $500,000 invested in 1980 after inflation.

Fuck you Boutons you ignorant piece of shit.

I can Cherry Pick examples too! I purchased 10k shares of apple stock in June 2011 @ $315 for $3,115,000. I sold them in Sept 2012 @ $700 per share. I just made a $3.85M profit in just over a year that will be taxed at 15% cap gains rate.

There have been multiple studies showing the favorable treatment of cap gains is the primary driver of growning inequality.

[BobaFett1]

Earned Income Tax Credit Amounts for Year 2012

The maximum earned income credit for 2012 is:


$5,891 with three or more qualifying children;
$5,236 with two qualifying children;
$3,169 with one qualifying child; and
$475 with no qualifying children.


Earned Income Tax Credit Amounts for Year 2011

The maximum earned income credit for 2011 is:


$5,751 with three or more qualifying children;
$5,112 with two qualifying children;
$3,094 with one qualifying child; and
$464 with no qualifying children.


To be eligible for EIC, both earned income and adjusted gross income (AGI) must each be less than the following amounts for 2012:



$45,060 ($50,270 married filing jointly) with 3 or more qualifying children
$41,952 ($47,162 married filing jointly) with 2 qualifying children;
$36,920 ($42,130 married filing jointly) with 1 qualifying child; or
$13,980 ($19,190 married filing jointly) with no qualifying children.


For 2011, earned income and AGI must be less than:


$43,998 ($49,078 married filing jointly) with 3 or more qualifying children
$40,964 ($46,044 married filing jointly) with 2 qualifying children;
$36,052 ($41,132 married filing jointly) with 1 qualifying child; or
$13,660 ($18,740 married filing jointly) with no qualifying children.


http://taxes.about.com/od/deductionscredits/qt/earnedincome.htm





Man this is socialist talk here son. Take from others and give to have nots.

[boutons_deux]

Man this is socialist talk here son. Take from others and give to have nots.

those "takers/moochers" are employed, they aren't 1%er racist St Ronnie's (black) Welfare Queens in Cadillacs.

How about raising minimum wage to $12, indexed to regional Cost of Living so people get "bracket creep-ed" up and out of the above brackets?

[LnGrrrR]

My point is a matter of principle. There isn't enough more revenue to by taxing the rich. If the poor and middle class think the government needs more revenue, then it need to come from them as well.

Actually, there would be quite a bit of revenue taxing the rich, but that's somewhat besides the point. I'm surprised that you would accept a weaker economy in order to satisfy your principles. I assumed it would be the other way around. Thanks for letting us know. :tu

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Eliminating the cap gains tax would also destroy the real estate market.

Example:

Lets say you invested $500,000 in a commercial property in 1980.

Lets say you paid your property taxes every year and then sold the property this year for 1.4 million.

You just made out like a bandit, didn't you?

uhhhh nope. You just lost your ass.

According to the IRS, investment "profit" is not indexed to inflation.

According to the IRS you just had a $900,000 "profit" on your investment that you now owe taxes on. Even at the "low" cap gains rate you guys are bitching about you would owe 20% (because you "made" more than $400,000 that year plus another 3.8% for Obamacare, so you would owe $214,200 in tax on your "profit". Tax it as ordinary income and you would owe $400,000+.

The only problem with this is there was really no profit at all. Even ignoring all the local property taxes paid over the years that 1.4 million in 2013 had EXACTLY THE SAME BUYING POWER as that $500,000 invested in 1980 after inflation.

Fuck you Boutons you ignorant piece of shit.

$500,000 becoming $1,400,000 over a 30+ year period (for argument's sake I'll say 30 years) has about a 3.43% nominal rate of return (compounded continuously) before you factor in the money spent on annual upkeep/property taxes. You can buy a 30 year risk free T-bond with a 3.43% yield. In other words, you just described a horrible investment any retard dumb enough to take should lose his shirt on.

[LnGrrrR]

$500,000 becoming $1,400,000 over a 30+ year period (for argument's sake I'll say 30 years) has about a 3.43% nominal rate of return (compounded continuously) before you factor in the money spent on annual upkeep/property taxes. You can buy a 30 year risk free T-bond with a 3.43% yield. In other words, you just described a horrible investment any retard dumb enough to take should lose his shirt on.

:lol That was a pretty good beatdown.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Eliminating cap gains and the estate tax exemptions would destroy small business as we know it. It completely kills any incentive to invest your savings in a business.

It would increase the required rate of return on investment which would be possible since a high cap gains and estate tax is the only way the middle class has sustained purchasing power. I challenge you to find an example of a society in history that was able to have a strong middle class while also providing the favorable tax treatment on estates and cap gains our tax code provides.

Anyone retarded enough to make a 30 year real estate investment with a 3.43% rate of return shouldn't be getting saved by the IRS for their dumbshit investing decisions.

[CosmicCowboy]

It would increase the required rate of return on investment which would be possible since a high cap gains and estate tax is the only way the middle class has sustained purchasing power. I challenge you to find an example of a society in history that was able to have a strong middle class while also providing the favorable tax treatment on estates and cap gains our tax code provides.

Anyone retarded enough to make a 30 year real estate investment with a 3.43% rate of return shouldn't be getting saved by the IRS for their dumbshit investing decisions.

I guess since you are so smart you have already made your millions...arrogant little prick.

[CosmicCowboy]

$500,000 becoming $1,400,000 over a 30+ year period (for argument's sake I'll say 30 years) has about a 3.43% nominal rate of return (compounded continuously) before you factor in the money spent on annual upkeep/property taxes. You can buy a 30 year risk free T-bond with a 3.43% yield. In other words, you just described a horrible investment any retard dumb enough to take should lose his shirt on.

BTW dumbass, the inflatioin adjusted return is 0, not 3.43%

The point was that the investor is taxed on a phantom $900,000 profit that wasn't a profit at all.

[Th'Pusher]

I guess since you are so smart you have already made your millions...arrogant little prick.
Well you did say it would "destroy the real estate market", then proceeded to give an example of how a 30 year investment in a commercial property was a bad deal. As if these types of investments are what drive the real estate market :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

Well you did say it would "destroy the real estate market", then proceeded to give an example of how a 30 year investment in a commercial property was a bad deal. As if these types of investments are what drive the real estate market :lol

The point is that inflation creates taxable phantom profits on any long term investment.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I guess since you are so smart you have already made your millions...arrogant little prick.

You don't need to be the 2nd coming of Warren Buffet to know that a long term real estate investment earning the rate of return a T-bond for the same duration earns is a horrible investment. That's especially the case here because of how high interest rates were in 1980. At the time you could buy a 30 year T-bond with a yield to maturity over 10%.

[Th'Pusher]

The point is that inflation creates taxable phantom profits on any long term investment.
I understand the point, but there is a tax exemption for profits on residential properties so I hardly think that backs up your claim that raising the cap gains tax will kill the real estate market. It won't and you know that.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

BTW dumbass, the inflatioin adjusted return is 0, not 3.43%

The point was that the investor is taxed on a phantom $900,000 profit that wasn't a profit at all.

The nominal return was 3.43%, I didn't say anything about the real return.

The investor made a horrible investment in something and should have weighed tax factors at the time. The reason why 30 year illiquid investments generally require a much higher nominal return is because of inflation, the investor should look into purchasing T-bonds next time.

[Drachen]

Earned Income Tax Credit Amounts for Year 2012

The maximum earned income credit for 2012 is:


$5,891 with three or more qualifying children;
$5,236 with two qualifying children;
$3,169 with one qualifying child; and
$475 with no qualifying children.


Earned Income Tax Credit Amounts for Year 2011

The maximum earned income credit for 2011 is:


$5,751 with three or more qualifying children;
$5,112 with two qualifying children;
$3,094 with one qualifying child; and
$464 with no qualifying children.


To be eligible for EIC, both earned income and adjusted gross income (AGI) must each be less than the following amounts for 2012:



$45,060 ($50,270 married filing jointly) with 3 or more qualifying children
$41,952 ($47,162 married filing jointly) with 2 qualifying children;
$36,920 ($42,130 married filing jointly) with 1 qualifying child; or
$13,980 ($19,190 married filing jointly) with no qualifying children.


For 2011, earned income and AGI must be less than:


$43,998 ($49,078 married filing jointly) with 3 or more qualifying children
$40,964 ($46,044 married filing jointly) with 2 qualifying children;
$36,052 ($41,132 married filing jointly) with 1 qualifying child; or
$13,660 ($18,740 married filing jointly) with no qualifying children.


http://taxes.about.com/od/deductionscredits/qt/earnedincome.htm



who are you responding to? I know it wasn't me since.... well. I wasn't having a conversation about EIC.

[Drachen]

BTW dumbass, the inflatioin adjusted return is 0, not 3.43%

The point was that the investor is taxed on a phantom $900,000 profit that wasn't a profit at all.

Should have gone with something else. This is a horrible horrible example.

This may yet be an awesome investment. Did you not rent out the property? Did you not use it for business purposes. Also, you might be paying higher taxes in the end, but you have been able to deduct property taxes, upkeep, etc from your previous 30 years of taxes. Just because your Capital didn't out-appreciate inflation in value doesn't mean you didn't kill on it.
Now, if you were stupid enough to buy a commercial property and let it sit empty for the last 30 years. I think that you should be taxed at 75%. - lol

[CosmicCowboy]

I could live with doing away with the cap gains tax if returns were indexed for inflation and losses were fully deductible as ordinary income.

[CosmicCowboy]

Should have gone with something else. This is a horrible horrible example.

This may yet be an awesome investment. Did you not rent out the property? Did you not use it for business purposes. Also, you might be paying higher taxes in the end, but you have been able to deduct property taxes, upkeep, etc from your previous 30 years of taxes. Just because your Capital didn't out-appreciate inflation in value doesn't mean you didn't kill on it.
Now, if you were stupid enough to buy a commercial property and let it sit empty for the last 30 years. I think that you should be taxed at 75%. - lol

I chose the numbers to illustrate inflation created phantom profits....$500,000 in 1980 = 1.4 million in 2013.

Rent received would have been taxed as ordinary income as it occurred.

And deductions still mean you had to spend $1 to save 30 cents in taxes.

[Th'Pusher]

I could live with doing away with the cap gains tax if returns were indexed for inflation and losses were fully deductible as ordinary income.
That's reasonable.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I could live with doing away with the cap gains tax if returns were indexed for inflation and losses were fully deductible as ordinary income.

That would work for me tbh. If cap gains are taxed as ordinary income it should also mean they create ordinary losses and you can take one in excess of $3,000.

[boutons_deux]

any capital gains lossses need to be capped, like mortgage deduction must be capped to median house price in a region and restricted to primary home

[CosmicCowboy]

Let me give you a real world example using the two scenarios.

My family bought 450 acres of farmland for $330 an acre in 1963 ($148,500)

We sold it recently for $5000 an acre ($2,250,000.)

Under the present tax code we should be taxed at 23.8% on $2,101,500. of "profit", or $493,852.30

Indexed for inflation that original $148,500 is now worth $1,117,535 in 2013

Under my proposal I would be taxed at 39% on the difference between $2,250,000 and $1,151,169, or $1,098,831. Tax at 39% would be $428,544.09

Y'all still want to do that deal?

[CosmicCowboy]

any capital gains lossses need to be capped, like mortgage deduction must be capped to median house price in a region and restricted to primary home

Anyone with a house nicer that Bouton's single wide trailer is an evil rich bastard.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Let me give you a real world example using the two scenarios.

My family bought 450 acres of farmland for $330 an acre in 1963 ($148,500)

We sold it recently for $5000 an acre ($2,250,000.)

Under the present tax code we should be taxed at 23.8% on $2,101,500. of "profit", or $493,852.30

Indexed for inflation that original $148,500 is now worth $1,117,535 in 2013

Under my proposal I would be taxed at 39% on the difference between $2,250,000 and $1,151,169, or $1,098,831. Tax at 39% would be $428,544.09

Y'all still want to do that deal?
Yeah actually. Your family paying slightly less on the farmland it's owned for 40 years wont really bother me since that's the kind of investment that should be encouraged. The main source of income from farmland isn't its appreciation in value so that part being taxed less makes sense.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

CC your plan would actually benefit capital investments that create jobs while it makes sense. Only taxing cap gains in excess of inflation means it's only real returns that are being taxed which is what's fair.

[CosmicCowboy]

Yeah actually. Your family paying slightly less on the farmland it's owned for 40 years wont really bother me since that's the kind of investment that should be encouraged. The main source of income from farmland isn't its appreciation in value so that part being taxed less makes sense.

While on the subject of that investment, it was purchased during a time of those ultra-high individual tax rates that Bouton's is so fond of referring to as "fair" The only thing was, those high rates were offset with a myriad of credits, deductions, and tax shelters, farmland being one of them. Most of these were eliminated in 86 with "tax simplification" where all those went away in exchange for lower rates. That land was basically bought with legally avoided taxes.

[boutons_deux]

Common to richies:

they never have enough,

are paranoid about losing a penny of it,

will eventually, as their wealth inures them to scruples, fuck anybody to get more,

and fuck everybody who isn't rich.

And of course, they think God wants them to be rich. They are rich because God loves them specially, which justifies them fucking over the non-rich. Their God aprproves of the fuck over.

[CosmicCowboy]

Common to richies:

they never have enough,

are paranoid about losing a penny of it,

will eventually, as their wealth inures them to scruples, fuck anybody to get more,

and fuck everybody who isn't rich.

And of course, they think God wants them to be rich. They are rich because God loves them specially, which justifies them fucking over the non-rich. Their God aprproves of the fuck over.

I approve of God fucking you over, Boutons.

[Wild Cobra]

"There isn't enough more revenue to by taxing the rich"

You Lie

Even after Regug tax cuts, tax avoidance, tax evasion, etc, etc, the top 20% pay 70% of total incomes taxes because of their incomes vastly, vastly, VASTLY surpass the income of the 80%.






I'm part of that 20%, and they aren't talking about raising my taxes. Those making that higher income is a smaller percentage, and again, how much of that income is taxable on the income tax tables? I'll bet only a small percentage of the wealthiest people would pay extra, and most of them would be the likes of Hollywood personalities and sports stars.

[boutons_deux]

I'm part of that 20%, and they aren't talking about raising my taxes. Those making that higher income is a smaller percentage, and again, how much of that income is taxable on the income tax tables? I'll bet only a small percentage of the wealthiest people would pay extra, and most of them would be the likes of Hollywood personalities and sports stars.

lotsa facts here, don't support your fantasies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

[Wild Cobra]

lotsa facts here, don't support your fantasies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States
That chart doesn't disagree either. I'm not claiming to make average range of a quintile.