• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Census shows 1 in 2 people are poor or low-income

Blue_State said:
Point withdrawn.
Click to expand...

what the real problem is --the merits for taxing LTCG lower than earned income are not defeated based on who is most likely to have LTCG but that is the main argument the hate the rich crowd spews against this lower tax rate
 
TurtleDude said:
what the real problem is --the merits for taxing LTCG lower than earned income are not defeated based on who is most likely to have LTCG but that is the main argument the hate the rich crowd spews against this lower tax rate
Click to expand...

Like I said Turtle, lets discuss it then without that. So present your case as to why there should be much lower rates for this type of income as opposed to others.
 
haymarket said:
Like I said Turtle, lets discuss it then without that. So present your case as to why there should be much lower rates for this type of income as opposed to others.
Click to expand...

asked and answered in several other threads. who benefits has absolutely no relevance to the merits of the tax rate
 
TurtleDude said:
asked and answered in several other threads. who benefits has absolutely no relevance to the merits of the tax rate
Click to expand...

NO NO NO. I am saying - that for the purposes of discussion - let put aside what you want to put aside, Lets leave out who benefits for the moment.

So now present your case as why capital gains should be taxed at a discriminatory and preferential rate lower than other forms of income like wages.

Can you do that?
 
Swit said:
This is funny.... you answer snarkily and then go after me for doing the same? Hilarious. But I digress.

First off slavery IS in fact the most efficient and effective way for an individual or organization to generate wealth.... history has shown this model effective time and time again. This is just plain fact. Thus if wealth generation is the sole desired output from our economic system then one would think we should employ the most effective and efficient means to accomplish that goal, i.e. slavery. If wealth generation is NOT the sole desired output from our economic system, then I ask again, what is the desired output? In other words it appears that even you agree that there are other desired outputs aside from "wealth", I am merely asking what those are.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your effort, but we are clearly not in the same league.You may interpret that any way you like.:cool:
 
TurtleDude said:
I find this sort of ranting funny

everyone got capital gains tax breaks.. What is hilarious is that the wealth bashers whine about a tax break based on the rich using it rather than the break itself while ignoring the fact that everyone got the break

your real hurt is over the rich apparently
Click to expand...


Your disdain of the working class aside, document how many of the US population derive most of their income from capital gains, thereby paying a lower tax rate than the middle class?

And document your claim that increasing the Capital gain tax rate in the 1990's hurt the economy?
 
Last edited:
I thought you guys wanted more money in the treasury so tat we could spend it.
 
Blue_State said:
I thought you guys wanted more money in the treasury so tat we could spend it.
Click to expand...

Nope, when we have recovered from the Bush Recession, we should cut spending.
 
Wake said:
Census shows 1 in 2 people are poor or low-income - Yahoo! News

To me I find this to be shocking. In my opinion, I would think the right is primarily to blame, for catering to the wealthy.

As they say, "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer."
Click to expand...

Then why is the low-income threshold so HIGH?
Many formerly middle-class Americans are dropping below the low-income threshold — roughly $45,000 for a family of four — because of pay cuts, a forced reduction of work hours or a spouse losing a job.
Click to expand...

That's more than my husband and I made in the first few years of our marriage.

Sounds to me like the real issue is MEGA inflation - $45K should be somewhat sufficient: not "the 2nd to bottom rung"

(I know I'm in so late on this thread)
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Then why is the low-income threshold so HIGH?


That's more than my husband and I made in the first few years of our marriage.

Sounds to me like the real issue is MEGA inflation - $45K should be somewhat sufficient: not "the 2nd to bottom rung"

(I know I'm in so late on this thread)
Click to expand...

How long ago did you get married and I'll adjust it for inflation back to that time (or if you don't want to tell me that info could you do it for us at this site: US Inflation Calucator?). That way we can see what you think of it then. For instance, if the numbers 2011, $45000, and 1990 are put in, it outputs $25k.

So, assuming you were married in 1990, would $25k have been low income to you then? Or if I overshot and you were married in 2000, how about $34k?
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Like how horrible it was in the 90's before the Capital gains tax break for the rich? The horror!!!!!
Click to expand...
Really, how horrible was it?
 
whysoserious said:
How long ago did you get married and I'll adjust it for inflation back to that time (or if you don't want to tell me that info could you do it for us at this site: US Inflation Calucator?). That way we can see what you think of it then. For instance, if the numbers 2011, $45000, and 1990 are put in, it outputs $25k.

So, assuming you were married in 1990, would $25k have been low income to you then? Or if I overshot and you were married in 2000, how about $34k?
Click to expand...

2003 - 18K between the two of us.

We were fine.

But again: that was before 2007 . . . I think inflation calculations can only be so helpful and that's part of the whole problem . . . however - to me $45K will always seem to be a lot of money seeing as how I've never earned that much - ever.

If I went back to the same job I wonder how much I'd earn now as opposed to then.
 
Last edited:
American said:
Really, how horrible was it?
Click to expand...

Capital gains tax rate being 5% higher wasn't horrible at all, that is the point!!!


As a matter of fact we were doing better with the higher rate than we have been doing since it was lowered. So forgive me if I don't fall for the whining that once again raising the capital gains tax rate 5% will be devastating.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
to me $45K will always seem to be a lot of money seeing as how I've never earned that much - ever.
Click to expand...

That was household income for a family of four, not individual income.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
2003 - 18K between the two of us.

We were fine.

But again: that was before 2007 . . . I think inflation calculations can only be so helpful and that's part of the whole problem . . . however - to me $45K will always seem to be a lot of money seeing as how I've never earned that much - ever.

If I went back to the same job I wonder how much I'd earn now as opposed to then.
Click to expand...

Did you just say there were two of you living off of $18k in 2003? Where? It had to be an extremely rural area... since your rent could not have been over $400.
 
Catawba said:
That was household income for a family of four, not individual income.
Click to expand...

Yes - our 18K was for a family of 5 . . . quite sufficient. I think I'm out of the loop a bit, though . . . 45K right now would be more than sufficient for our family of 6.

So I'm guess that in this state 45K is way over the region's 'low income' bracket - it's not one size fits all. I can see it being insufficient for living in places like California.

whysoserious said:
Did you just say there were two of you living off of $18k in 2003? Where? It had to be an extremely rural area... since your rent could not have been over $400.
Click to expand...

In the city - we had two vehicles, rent was around $200.00 or so for a decent apartment. We ate healthy, had health insurance - all the usual expenses. In fact, our lives are pretty much teh same now except now we live rural which actually makes things a bit more expensive due to lack of local convenience.

I guess this shows that some areas were affected more than others when 2007 hit and I'm referring to a time many years before that . . . I have no sense of how much it would take to live the same way now as we lived back then. Maybe I should research these things and find out. You know: how much has rent for that same apartment increased, factor in the cost of higher gas and utilties . . .etc.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
Yes - our 18K was for a family of 5 . . . quite sufficient. I think I'm out of the loop a bit, though . . . 45K right now would be more than sufficient for our family of 6.

So I'm guess that in this state 45K is way over the region's 'low income' bracket - it's not one size fits all. I can see it being insufficient for living in places like California.



In the city - we had two vehicles, rent was around $200.00 or so for a decent apartment. We ate healthy, had health insurance - all the usual expenses. In fact, our lives are pretty much teh same now except now we live rural which actually makes things a bit more expensive due to lack of local convenience.

I guess this shows that some areas were affected more than others when 2007 hit and I'm referring to a time many years before that . . . I have no sense of how much it would take to live the same way now as we lived back then. Maybe I should research these things and find out. You know: how much has rent for that same apartment increased, factor in the cost of higher gas and utilties . . .etc.
Click to expand...


Health insurance cost has tripled since 2003. The wife and I pay over $1000 a month for just catastrophic health insurance. $43,000 for a family of 4 today are the working poor.
 
whysoserious said:
Did you just say there were two of you living off of $18k in 2003? Where? It had to be an extremely rural area... since your rent could not have been over $400.
Click to expand...

Catawba said:
Health insurance cost has tripled since 2003. The wife and I pay over $1000 a month for just catastrophic health insurance. $43,000 for a family of 4 today are the working poor.
Click to expand...

yeah - some things like that I know have gone WAY up.
 
haymarket said:
NO NO NO. I am saying - that for the purposes of discussion - let put aside what you want to put aside, Lets leave out who benefits for the moment.

So now present your case as why capital gains should be taxed at a discriminatory and preferential rate lower than other forms of income like wages.

Can you do that?
Click to expand...

I don't believe in any taxes on income

but most experts support a lower tax on LTCG as benefiting society

you seem to be mad that the rich have more LTCG than others and you are apparently upset that all the rich's income is not taxed at 35% even though you cannot articulate a sound economic reason for taxing LTCG at that rate
 
Catawba said:
Capital gains tax rate being 5% higher wasn't horrible at all, that is the point!!!


As a matter of fact we were doing better with the higher rate than we have been doing since it was lowered. So forgive me if I don't fall for the whining that once again raising the capital gains tax rate 5% will be devastating.
Click to expand...

how much capital gains income do you have or is just another case of you pretending that tax hikes on OTHERS won't hurt YOU
 
TurtleDude said:
how much capital gains income do you have or is just another case of you pretending that tax hikes on OTHERS won't hurt YOU
Click to expand...

Would it change the logic of the argument if he had $10 million in cap gains last year? No.
 
TurtleDude said:
I don't believe in any taxes on income

but most experts support a lower tax on LTCG as benefiting society

you seem to be mad that the rich have more LTCG than others and you are apparently upset that all the rich's income is not taxed at 35% even though you cannot articulate a sound economic reason for taxing LTCG at that rate
Click to expand...

I believe in very low taxes on REAL capital gains. In saying that, I draw the distinction between capital gains earned on stock in the aftermarket and real investment capital (money directly invested in a business or an IPO, where proceeds substantially are investment capital.) Moreover, these gains should be earned over TIME; the holding period should be longer than a year, probably three years.

We should be encouraging investment capital and discouraging high wages (removing retained earnings, hence investment capital from a business). Capital gains taxes should be 10-15% (again, gains on investment capital, not trading stocks), with tax on high wages, say in excess of $1M, at 50%.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
how much capital gains income do you have or is just another case of you pretending that tax hikes on OTHERS won't hurt YOU
Click to expand...

You miss the point as usual, a consumer economy cannot prosper, as we have seen, when most of the wealth is concentrated at the top through our tax system that is much less progressive than when we had a strong middle class. It was once believed that reducing the capital gains tax rate would spur investment in US jobs. We have 3 decades to show us that was lie. The trickle down in US jobs ain't happening! We're giving tax breaks to companies that are taking that money and investing it overseas. Tell me why that's in the interest of the middle class?

And, why should those work for a living pay a higher tax rate on their income to support lower tax rates for those who get most of their income from investments?
 
Catawba said:
Nope, when we have recovered from the Bush Recession, we should cut spending.
Click to expand...

Not sure if we can still call it the Bush Recession, but whatever.

They will never cut spending. Even now, when they say they are cutting spending, they are only cutting the rate of the budget growth. Take the "cuts" that were suppose to go into effect when the super committee couldn't make budget recommendations. Those "cuts" were just a slowdown in spending, but the budget was still growing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom