Reply With Quote
No Sherlock, yet they are a part of our income. Gross may not be important to you, but it is important to get a true sense of taxes paid.Some things are simply non-taxable
What do you mean "real" percentages? Some things are simply non-taxable, thus they simply don't belong in the taxable category and as such they're not part of the tax rate.
Not all income is taxable, that's why using gross to talk about "what's taxed" is silly.
An honest conversation about tax rates would discuss taxable income and brackets, since that would already exclude any deductions or exceptions (which are not the same for everyone).
No Sherlock, yet they are a part of our income. Gross may not be important to you, but it is important to get a true sense of taxes paid.Some things are simply non-taxable
Out of my taxable income, I have a "true sense" (whatever that's supposed to mean) of what my taxes were.
You started this thread on a rant about how some people about how much rich people get taxed.
If you want to have an adult conversation about tax rates, you should probably start by figuring out what's called a "tax rate" and what those percentages are.
After I posted what my actual tax rate was, you followed up with some stupid comment on how much I was supposed to be making, which was completely incorrect, seeing you're talking something completely different from actual tax rates.
donations are also from your income but they're never considered the tax your pay, hence are never counted in the tax rate imho. romney gives up nearly 50% of his annual income in the forms of donation and tax, but tax only accounts to 15%No Sherlock, yet they are a part of our income. Gross may not be important to you, but it is important to get a true sense of taxes paid.
Because I was specifically saying in the OP, percentage of gross.
Romney's taxes he paid are a percentage of his gross. Not his tax rate.
Romney is a good example why gross over tax is pretty irrelevant. Dude paid 14% on $21 million gross. In order to do that he had to apply mammoth deductions.
Looking at your chart, I would expect him to be paying in the 20% range.
Romney also had a good chunk coming from capital gains, which are taxed lower and basically don't show on that chart.
Mitt didn't write the tax code though, so it isn't really his fault he's paying what he is.
Most of his earnings were paid as Capital gains I bet, and probably at the 10% rate. He also had huge write-offs, like much of his hing.
Do you understand the difference between an income tax rates and capital gains rates?
If so, 'nuff said.
More reason why the comparisons are irrelevant.
IMO, capital gains should be taxed just like regular income.
No.
That's exactly why you must compare from gross income. Not taxable income.
No what?
That makes no sense.
Non-taxable income pays no taxes. Capitals gains is indeed taxable income, just with a separate, specific rate.
I'm just over here shaking my head at how hard headed you are.
Income is income. You would complain if the wealthy got all income that was not taxable now, wouldn't you.
When comparing how much a person contributs percentage wise of their income, you need to take all their taxes paid and divide it into all their income.
According your reasoning then, the poor would no longer have reason to complain about the wealthy's taxes, if the wealthy paid no taxes then. Right?
If I cared what you thought, I would ask. I don't care.
I know.
You don't give a about the truth.
You are just a partisan hack.
What party does my posts in this thread tell you I'm carrying water for, counselor?
lol opinion = truth
So, and again please forgive my ignorance in advance, but capital gains could be from stocks that say, benefited other-than-American workers/businesses/etc etc, correct? For instance, say I put $10M into stock for a company based out of, I don't know, India, I would pay the capital gains rate on those taxes?
I don't know. I would be guessing on the details.
Lib s
What party does my posts in this thread tell you I'm carrying water for, counselor?
lol opinion = truth
I believe so. IIRC, the only difference is that if the stock is traded on a foreign exchange, you would put that as capital gains under your world-wide income.
Please explain. I've been saying Mitt did nothing wrong all along.
My mistake.
You're still a lib .
So you were wrong or just lying?
If that is the case, why the heck are we reducing taxation on that?I could see reducing taxes if it went to Americans (even though most American corps probably outsource anyways.)
I wouldn't mind lowered taxes on capital gains if those funds were supporting American businesses/workers.
I think unless we are going to change from a production bases tax system like we have to a consumption based tax system, that capital gains are about right for traditional capital investment. I would however, advocate a 35% rate or higher on daytrading. I would suggest the the low rates we have should only be for tangible investments, and long term holding.
What I'd like to know is how much of all these capital gains are coming from actual long term investments vs very short-term (algorithmic or otherwise). In other words, how many come from actual investing vs just fast-paced trading.If that is the case, why the heck are we reducing taxation on that?
I wouldn't mind lowered taxes on capital gains if those funds were supporting American businesses/workers.
The latter might make good money for some people, but it really does little for companies.
No. My mistake was thinking you were against the rates Mitt paid.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
