What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

TurtleDude · Aug 24, 2011

liblady said:
how disengenuous. the middle class are far less likely to have capital gains. we cannot just continue to concentrate wealth at the expesne of the middle class.

you libs often confuse and mix up arguments

the tax rates on LTCG are not validly attacked by whining about which groups of tax payers may have LTCG income

David D. · Aug 24, 2011

TurtleDude said:
you libs often confuse and mix up arguments

the tax rates on LTCG are not validly attacked by whining about which groups of tax payers may have LTCG income

Turtledude- do you believe rich people have and do take advantage of the ability to manipulate laws and lawmakers more so than someone with less money? Do you think this power is abused? Do you think it's fair?

I think so (as in it's abused, unfair), and I think that's why liberals are upset (and so should be conservatives) because it hampers the ability of the free market to function properly.

TurtleDude · Aug 24, 2011

David D. said:
Turtledude- do you believe rich people have and do take advantage of the ability to manipulate laws and lawmakers more so than someone with less money? Do you think this power is abused? Do you think it's fair? I think so, and I think that's why liberals are upset (and so should be conservatives) because it hampers the ability of the free market to function properly.

1) you have to define the rich. as far as the tax scheme goes that means everyone making more than 200K and Very few in that group have the ability to manipulate laws so imposing tax hikes on that group is as unfair as cutting off all welfare because a larger percentage of those on welfare manipulate the system than the number of the rich who can manipulate laws2) many of the uber rich derive poltical power as well as insulate their lofty positions by pushing for higher taxes so there is no monolithic agreement among the very rich3) given the fact that the left is as well represented among the uber rich as the right your argument has no real merit. and I would note if the rich had monolithic position combined with the power you claim, the rich would not be paying almost twice as much of the income tax burden as their share of the income.

LesGovt · Aug 24, 2011

liblady said:
how disengenuous. the middle class are far less likely to have capital gains. we cannot just continue to concentrate wealth at the expesne of the middle class.

It is far from disengenuous. The truth is not disengenuous. I am middle class and I have paid capital gains taxes. I would think that more middle class people pay capital gains than those who earn $250,000 or more. In fact, it appears that I am correct. Here is a link to site that backs me up.

"Fewer than one in seven individual income taxpayers reported taxable capital gains in 2006. Over half of taxpayers with gains had incomes below $75,000,..."

Who Pays Capital Gains Tax?

David D. · Aug 24, 2011

TurtleDude said:
as far as the tax scheme goes that means everyone making more than 200K and Very few in that group have the ability to manipulate laws so imposing tax hikes on that group is as unfair as cutting off all welfare because a larger percentage of those on welfare manipulate the system than the number of the rich who can manipulate laws

True, TurtleDude, and let me say that my frustration is towards the 'uber-rich' group, specifically. I think a system is broken when maybe 0.1% have a much more disproportionate say as to how the laws are created than the remaining 99.9%, it creates market conditions which are unfair for what the majority of people may want. The 0.1% should have a 0.1% say on how laws are formed. That's democracy.

TurtleDude said:
many of the uber rich derive poltical power as well as insulate their lofty positions by pushing for higher taxes so there is no monolithic agreement among the very rich3) given the fact that the left is as well represented among the uber rich as the right your argument has no real merit

I never mentioned that taxes were the problem - higher taxes, lower taxes, whatever it's just a political thing mostly. Taxes aren't causing the wealth stratification.

Also mentioned that both the left and right should be equally angry so I'm not sure how the 'fact that the left is as well represented' derails my argument. It's no secret that Obama gave $700 freaking billion dollars of our hard made cash to people who seemed not to care about anything else than making money through fraud and corruption. Garbage mortgage securities given "AAA" ratings? Give me a break. We need more accountability, not more regulation.

TurtleDude said:
and I would note if the rich had monolithic position combined with the power you claim, the rich would not be paying almost twice as much of the income tax burden as their share of the income

I don't believe in conspiracy theories, and I don't think that the rich have this huge, unified 'new world agenda'. However, you can't deny that the rich will work together (ie in smaller groups, like by sector) for the common goal of more profit, which will at times sacrifice the well being of many to comfort the few, and they can do this simply because they have more money. In America, money = power when it comes to shaping laws, and what that does is tip the boat in the direction of people with wealth.

LesGovt · Aug 24, 2011

David D. said:
True, TurtleDude, and let me say that my frustration is towards the 'uber-rich' group, specifically. I think a system is broken when maybe 0.1% have a much more disproportionate say as to how the laws are created than the remaining 99.9%, it creates market conditions which are unfair for what the majority of people may want. The 0.1% should have a 0.1% say on how laws are formed. That's democracy.

Hmmm. You are frustrated with people who build computers in their garage and turn it into untold wealth? And, you are frustrated with people who know how to write programs for computers and end up with computerized social networking sites and make untold fortunes? And, you are frustrated with people who had a college thesis to provide overnight air service for packages and became wealthy? Could you please provide some examples of where Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, or Fred Smith created a law.

David D. · Aug 24, 2011

LesGovt said:
Hmmm. You are frustrated with people who build computers in their garage and turn it into untold wealth? And, you are frustrated with people who know how to write programs for computers and end up with computerized social networking sites and make untold fortunes? And, you are frustrated with people who had a college thesis to provide overnight air service for packages and became wealthy? Could you please provide some examples of where Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, or Fred Smith created a law.

Sure Les, I was being a bit too general, I admit. I don't have contempt for people who are rich (because many of those people, as you point out, have contributed wonderful things to society and deserve every bit of wealth they have) and I admit that perhaps I should have worded my argument differently.

To restate my point, let me start with (one) definition of democracy:
"Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives"

I am frustrated by the fact that if you happen to have a boat-load of wealth and money, you have the ability to have a much more powerful say as to how laws are shaped. It's not the people we need to be mad at, it's the system. "Money" should not equal "a louder voice" in Washington. I don't have the answers on how to change this, perhaps we can start however by eliminating Super-PACs, limiting campaign funding, and encouraging new avenues that people can learn about and/or nominate candidates besides the national mainstream media. I think total transparency as to who's giving money to who is a good start.

lpast · Aug 24, 2011

David D. said:
Turtledude- do you believe rich people have and do take advantage of the ability to manipulate laws and lawmakers more so than someone with less money? Do you think this power is abused? Do you think it's fair?

I think so (as in it's abused, unfair), and I think that's why liberals are upset (and so should be conservatives) because it hampers the ability of the free market to function properly.

Thats why the whining that the Poor and Middleclass that are powerless abuse the rich is just garbage, the rich manipulate EVERYTHING from the economy to politics, some whine the rich pay to much taxs...thats because the rich have to much of the WEALTH, which they got off the poor and middleclass

LesGovt · Aug 24, 2011

David D. said:
Sure Les, I was being a bit too general, I admit. I don't have contempt for people who are rich (because many of those people, as you point out, have contributed wonderful things to society and deserve every bit of wealth they have) and I admit that perhaps I should have worded my argument differently.

To restate my point, let me start with (one) definition of democracy:
"Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives"

I am frustrated by the fact that if you happen to have a boat-load of wealth and money, you have the ability to have a much more powerful say as to how laws are shaped. It's not the people we need to be mad at, it's the system. "Money" should not equal "a louder voice" in Washington. I don't have the answers on how to change this, perhaps we can start however by eliminating Super-PACs, limiting campaign funding, and encouraging new avenues that people can learn about and/or nominate candidates besides the national mainstream media. I think total transparency as to who's giving money to who is a good start.

Apparently, we differ over what the United States is. It is not a democracy. We do not have equal say. Look at the populations of California and Wyoming. Each state has two Senators. Which state do you think you would have a better chance of being heard by your Senator?

You are assuming that wealthy people go around and hand out money to politicians for votes. I don't believe that most politicians vote that way. For example, take whichever side of abortion you want, do you think that someone as rich as Bill Gates could persuade you to vote the opposite of your beliefs. I doubt it. Or, how about the Affordable Health Care Act which was recently passed. Do you believe that the Democrats were bought and paid for because they voted for it? And, were the Republicans bought and paid for because they voted against it? I don't think that was the case. I believe that philosophical differences exist between the GOP and the Dems and that is why bipartisan votes are difficult to come by. If people with money could just walk in a bribe people to vote the way they wanted them to, there would be no gridlock in Washington. George Soros would have the GOP voting as if they were Dems and the Koch Brothers would have Dems voting for GOP items.

Yes, you were far too general in your initial statement, but I fear that you are far too jaded and cynical about politics and the wealthy.

Catawba · Aug 24, 2011

liblady said:
how disengenuous. the middle class are far less likely to have capital gains. we cannot just continue to concentrate wealth at the expesne of the middle class.

You are absolutely correct of course! That is why we only get opinions and insults in response to the facts.

"Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.

The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.

Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners."
Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says - New York Times

Gipper · Aug 24, 2011

lpast said:
Thats why the whining that the Poor and Middleclass that are powerless abuse the rich is just garbage, the rich manipulate EVERYTHING from the economy to politics, some whine the rich pay to much taxs...thats because the rich have to much of the WEALTH, which they got off the poor and middleclass

Why does more wealth necessarily mean more tax burden? Does Bill Gates use more highway than you? Is Steven Jobs more defended by our military than you? Do police and firefighters respond faster to Warren Buffet than you?

It's already been determined ad nauseum that the rich pay a MUCH higher tax burden than the low and middle classes. When the top 1% pays more than the bottom 96%, you shouldn't hear a word from that 96%.

David D. · Aug 24, 2011

LesGovt said:
Apparently, we differ over what the United States is. It is not a democracy. We do not have equal say. Look at the populations of California and Wyoming. Each state has two Senators. Which state do you think you would have a better chance of being heard by your Senator? .

What about the House of Representatives? We may not have a true democracy in the literal sense of the word, but what the point I’m making is that the Billionaire is going to have a much louder voice in crafting policy than the One-thousandaire, even if they live in the same city, same state.

LesGovt said:
You are assuming that wealthy people go around and hand out money to politicians for votes. I don't believe that most politicians vote that way.

Les, these are exactly what campaign contributions are. Do you think Goldman Sachs gave Obama a million bucks in 2008 because they were move to tears by his “Yes We Can” speech? I don’t think so. When corporations give money it’s for a reason, and I also think the decisions of the largest corporations are generally controlled by those who are wealthiest in our country. Congresspeople want to get reelected and it’s only natural to keep your largest donors in mind when voting. This is not to say that they don’t have a free will and opinions of their own, just saying that money talks in many situations.

LesGovt said:
or example, take whichever side of abortion you want, do you think that someone as rich as Bill Gates could persuade you to vote the opposite of your beliefs. I doubt it. Or, how about the Affordable Health Care Act which was recently passed. Do you believe that the Democrats were bought and paid for because they voted for it? And, were the Republicans bought and paid for because they voted against it? I don't think that was the case. I believe that philosophical differences exist between the GOP and the Dems and that is why bipartisan votes are difficult to come by. If people with money could just walk in a bribe people to vote the way they wanted them to, there would be no gridlock in Washington. George Soros would have the GOP voting as if they were Dems and the Koch Brothers would have Dems voting for GOP items..

Now you are over-generalizing.

Do I think that every vote a congressperson makes is directly related to a bribe? Answer is no. Do I think that congresspeople at times (especially with a key vote that will affect the way business will be done in America) can be persuaded with outside money (legally) in one way shape or form – of course.

Not saying it’s evil, or it’s a big conspiracy, just saying that it’s human nature to look out for oneself and when the game is setup so that a congressperson can be manipulated through CASH one way shape or form, you’re gonna have problems.

haymarket · Aug 24, 2011

American said:
Where did this ever occur? :lol: OMG, you defend the Constitution??? Yeah, like the wolf defending the sheep.

I have never stopped defending the Constitution. I noticed the painful absence of any attending evidence of any lack of evidence in your attack on me.

haymarket · Aug 24, 2011

TurtleDude said:
More frantic postings--I am posting in reference to your claims, not your beliefs.

the rich do not payer lower LTCG rates and they pay the highest STCG rates

Capital gains tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How can you participate in a discussion but yet be completely and utterly oblivious to the main points of that discussion? I know - willful blindness brought on by an ideological belief system.

The facts are undeniable: capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than income would be for the people most likely to hold investments that pay decent levels of capital gains .... guess who that would be Turtle???????

haymarket · Aug 24, 2011

TurtleDude said:
the tax rates on LTCG are not validly attacked by whining about which groups of tax payers may have LTCG income

Its not whining to point out the painfully obvious that is truthful even if it is painful to you and that cause the whining to come from yourself. it is indeed relevant and important that certain groups of taxpayers have large amounts of capital gains income and certain groups of taxpayers tend not to have capital gains income or very low levels of capital gains income. And it is indeed relevant and important to the discussion that wealthy Americans would pay all of their income in the highest tax bracket but their large amounts of income from capital gains are taxed at half what their income would be for the same levels.

from the earlier link for the tax Policy center

The 3 percent of returns with AGI over $200,000 reported 31 percent of AGI and 83 percent of capital gains; the 0.3 percent with AGI over $1,000,000 reported 15 percent of AGI and 61 percent of capital gains. Many more Americans accrue capital gains on corporate shares they hold within tax-deferred employer-sponsored retirement plans, but they do not pay capital gains tax on these gains.

Those numbers speak loud and speak volumes. That is discriminatory and unequal treatment of what should be considered as income.

All sources of income should be taxed as such.

Or can you now do Turtle what you have been unable to do up until this point - make a coherent and rational case for this discriminatory tax rate for capital gains?

If a single person files for this year and declares $213,000 in taxable income, they will pay a rate of 33%.
That same person declaring only $213,000 of long term capital gains only pays a rate of 15% - a preferential rate over a full 50% lower than that of other income.

If a single person files for this year and declares $380,000 in taxable income, they will pay a rate of 35%.
That same person declaring only $380,000 of long term capital gains only pays a rate of 15% - a preferential rate over 55% lower than that of other income.

So please Turtle, do what you have unable to do in any thread on this board up to this moment - provide some intellectual and rational justification why this obvious discrimination should be allowed.

lpast · Aug 24, 2011

Gipper said:
Why does more wealth necessarily mean more tax burden? Does Bill Gates use more highway than you? Is Steven Jobs more defended by our military than you? Do police and firefighters respond faster to Warren Buffet than you?

It's already been determined ad nauseum that the rich pay a MUCH higher tax burden than the low and middle classes. When the top 1% pays more than the bottom 96%, you shouldn't hear a word from that 96%.

It comes with the ability to pay....there are many so called conservatives on here who say there should not be a minimum wage...tell me how can a single person live on 7.00 an hour...even in the cheapest cost of living area in the country.....The top pay the most because they have it and family of 4 making two minimum wage salaries cant MAKE it...they still pay sales tax and all the other fees...

Henrin · Aug 24, 2011

lpast said:
....there are many so called conservatives on here who say there should not be a minimum wage...tell me how can a single person live on 7.00 an hour...even in the cheapest cost of living area in the country.....

You don't realize you just made the argument against minimum wage do you?

The top pay the most because they have it and family of 4 making two minimum wage salaries cant MAKE it...they still pay sales tax and all the other fees...

That is not the top payers problem.

Catawba · Aug 24, 2011

lpast said:
It comes with the ability to pay....there are many so called conservatives on here who say there should not be a minimum wage...tell me how can a single person live on 7.00 an hour...even in the cheapest cost of living area in the country.....The top pay the most because they have it and family of 4 making two minimum wage salaries cant MAKE it...they still pay sales tax and all the other fees...

That is absolutely correct. It also has to do with the painfully obvious fact that an economy cannot sustain itself when 85% of the country's wealth is concentrated in 20% of the population. It doesn't provide enough consumerism for our economy to prosper.

haymarket · Aug 24, 2011

Henrin said:
You don't realize you just made the argument against minimum wage do you?

Actually, he made a good argument for a significantly HIGHER minimum age.

Henrin · Aug 24, 2011

haymarket said:
Actually, he made a good argument for a significantly HIGHER minimum age.

Nope. A minimum wage of 7.00 dollars is no different than a minimum wage of 50.00 dollars. The idea is economically unsound.

lpast · Aug 24, 2011

Henrin said:
You don't realize you just made the argument against minimum wage do you?

That is not the top payers problem.

No in your mind anything is an argument against minimum wage....and it is the taxpayers problem including me, I pay taxs it always was and it always will be our problem...this isnt biafra, somalia, or rwanda in my 64 yrs ive never witnessed americans allow other americans to suffer and die in the street.....the desire to have those with less suffer is a new phenomena predicated on teaparty thinking greedy callous individuals...who I predict will fail in the longrun.
I would like to add that its not the Truly rich that do all the whining...its the people that have a few bucks that are doing all this whining....the buffets the Gates and others that have the big bucks arent doing all the whining.

Ive been waiting for the "CONSERVATIVES" to start posting whiny threads about the dirtbag 10% of country not paying taxs and robbing them...Ohhh wait we already had the whiney they shouldnt get unemployment threads how could I have forgotten

Henrin · Aug 24, 2011

lpast said:
No in your mind anything is an argument against minimum wage....and it is the taxpayers problem including me, I pay taxs it always was and it always will be our problem...this isnt biafra, somalia, or rwanda in my 64 yrs ive never witnessed americans allow other americans to suffer and die in the street.....the desire to have those with less suffer is a new phenomena predicated on teaparty thinking greedy callous individuals...who I predict will fail in the longrun.

That was fun. I won't pay your bills, I see minimum wage as it actually is, so therefore I wish people to die. Great fun.

lpast · Aug 24, 2011

Henrin said:
That was fun. I won't pay your bills, I see minimum wage as it actually is, so therefore I wish people to die. Great fun.

You may not want them to die henrin but you certainly dont give a chit if they have food on the table...theres a minimum wage because there was unscrupulous dirtbags that worked people for just about nothing kind of like the employers that hire illegals for less than minimum wage because they know they cant complain......working for 7 bucks an hour today is working for nothing.

LesGovt · Aug 24, 2011

David D. said:
Les, these are exactly what campaign contributions are. Do you think Goldman Sachs gave Obama a million bucks in 2008 because they were move to tears by his “Yes We Can” speech? I don’t think so. When corporations give money it’s for a reason, and I also think the decisions of the largest corporations are generally controlled by those who are wealthiest in our country. Congresspeople want to get reelected and it’s only natural to keep your largest donors in mind when voting. This is not to say that they don’t have a free will and opinions of their own, just saying that money talks in many situations.

Can you show the quid pro quo? Are you saying that you would not vote your conscience if you were a Representative?[/QUOTE]

Catawba · Aug 24, 2011

LesGovt said:
Can you show the quid pro quo? Are you saying that you would not vote your conscience if you were a Representative?

You are totally misrepresenting what he said. Are you that dense, or just being dishonest?

What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

More options

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

David D.

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

LesGovt

David D.

LesGovt

David D.

lpast

LesGovt

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Gipper

David D.

haymarket

haymarket

haymarket

lpast

Henrin

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

haymarket

Henrin

lpast

Henrin

lpast

LesGovt

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist